Ron Paul wins Virgin Islands with 29%...

[aristotle]

Please .... don't be so wordy .....

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.​

​

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path." - Ronald Reagan, 1975, Reason Magazine

​

Inside Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview

In 1975 Ronald Reagan was trying to curry favor with Libertarians to defeat incumbent Gerald Ford. Yes, The Gipper was capable of pandering for votes. Reagan hoped to form a coalition of conservatives and Libertarians to steal the nomination from Republican moderate, Gerald Ford. Reagan almost succeeded in 1975-76. By 1980, Reagan was unstoppable.

 

[RLENT]

In 1975 Ronald Reagan was trying to curry favor with Libertarians to defeat incumbent Gerald Ford. Yes, The Gipper was capable of pandering for votes. Reagan hoped to form a coalition of conservatives and Libertarians to steal the nomination from Republican moderate, Gerald Ford. Reagan almost succeeded in 1975-76. By 1980, Reagan was unstoppable.

Well, if you sit back and contemplate on that for just a bit, you may find it ... revelatory ...

Here's another one for ya:

Tonight, while I was sitting here working with the TV on, I caught something of interest - the results of some polling - of Republican voters. Now I didn't hear who had done the poll (turns out it was Pew apparently), so I'm afraid I can't name a name or provide a link - but the gist of the result was:

If somehow Santorum, in a highly unlikely event, were to get the Republican nomination, a full 20% of those polled that support Romney said that they would vote for Obama in the general ....

Now .... what do you make of that ?

Oops - found a reference to it online:

Romney Voters Would Support Obama If Santorum Is the Nominee

 

[aristotle]

Is this the same Ron Paul who was appalled when US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden?

 

[RLENT]

Is this the same Ron Paul who was appalled when US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden?

No, that Ron Paul doesn't exist .... he's but one figment (among many apparently) of your imagination .... a mere hallucination ....

The Ron Paul I'm talking about actually voted to go after Bin Laden ....

I think he was disappointed that we did not actually apprehend Bin Laden and place him in custody (there were many, many possible upsides to that - let your mind go wild), and then when we finally did get him, it took 10 years, nearly half a trillion dollars ..... and around 1,500 American lives ....

Of course, it was said Bin Laden resisted .... and we all know that the government and military would never, ever lie about such a thing ..... right ?

I believe Dr. Paul may have been appalled at the shortsightedness of the Obama administration, who failed to work with our ally, Pakistan, before we entered their sovereign territory, and further inflamed relations with them:

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”​

As you may have heard, that intrusion was just another link in a long chain of stupid events that eventually resulted in our access to a land-based supply route through Pakistan being denied, raising resupply costs significantly, and it could, ultimately, needlessly jeopardize the lives of our armed forces. That denial of access continues today, 4 months after it was imposed.

Not only that, but we have now managed to fully inflame the majority of the Pakistani population against us .... it takes real effort and talent to make enemies where none actually exist.

Of course, stupidity, in terms of foreign relations - as well as many other things - is something that we, as a nation, have shown a particular talent for.

In the words of the voice-over from a video I once edited having to do with our meddling in Angola:

"...... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ...."​

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian running under a false flag.

Can you tell me the difference between a true conservative and a libertarian? Hint: It's as small as the difference between liberalism and socialism.

 

[RLENT]

Ari,

As a little food for thought with respect to all the fascination and attention you seem to have stuck on the whole "party" thing, I offer the following for contemplation (..... just in case you get bored after responding to T'Hawk):

"COLLECTIVISM: Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern.

In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand

"G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), and Karl Marx (1818-83) ... both viewed political phenomena as the inevitable result of historical processes, and regarded collectives as of greater reality and value than their individual members." -- Prof. Fred D. Miller​

Evaluate the above against the following:

"The foundation of individualism lies in one's moral right to pursue one's own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.

"But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party's happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.

"Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right." -- Shawn E. Klein

"Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.

Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." -- Ayn Rand​

More at this link: Collectivism vs. Individualism

.... fight the Borg .... don't become part of the Collective ....​

 

[RLENT]

The good Dr. Paul speaks to thousands yesterday at the University of Missouri campus:

 

[RLENT]

..... and with late-breaking news from The Most Holy Shrine Of The Perpetual Continuing Footbullet (aka Campaign Santorum) this just in:

Santorum stands by English condition for Puerto Rico statehood

With such a masterful move to sew up the Hispanic vote just prior to the Puerto Rico primary on Sunday, "Slick Rick" clearly has that "strategery" thing going on ... one can only wonder (and hope) what tomorrow might bring ....

I'm tellin' ya, it's just pure political genius ....

 

[RLENT]

Paul event at at The University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana:

Gingrich "rally" in Rosemont, IL:​

 

[Jefferson3000]

Yep, and the same Ron Paul who thinks a nuclear-armed Iran would be just another good neighbor in the Middle East. There's just no escaping his record and his stated positions on foreign policy, and the vast majority of Americans recognize them for what they are. Consequently, it appears he'll be no more influential in this year's GOP convention than he was in 2008.

Current GOP delegate count:
Romney 496
Santorum 236
Gingrich 141
Paul 66

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Delegate Count

Actually, Romney about 354 delegates as of this date. The rest that are proportionately being attributed to him and others are unbound or "soft" delegates. They are not bound to vote for any particular person. They bear the right to vote their own conscience. The final delegates to the convention have not even been chosen in ANY state, barring the Virgin islands selection. Unless you know those delegates' names and addresses, you don't know what they are going to do. From the article that RLENT posted, you could conclude that maybe close to 40 of 40 delegates in Minnesota will go towards Paul, which pulls a lot of those attributed to Santorum, off his total. The same thing is occurring in Maine, Colorado and other places, where the delegates are unbound.

Then there is the issue of the number of Ron Paul supporters in GA, FL and other places, that are being elected to bound delegates spots for Romney and others. When no candidate gets 1144 at the convention on the first round, almost all the delegates become unbound. You may be very shocked to see what appears out of the "Trojan Horse." It's definitely going to be a wild convention.

 

[Pilgrim]

Is this the same Ron Paul who was appalled when US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden?

...and the same Ron Paul who was the Keynote Speaker at the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society. Not the first time he's spoken at their meetings, and an organization with whom he continues to have a close relationship.

 

[RLENT]

...and the same Ron Paul who was the Keynote Speaker at the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society. Not the first time he's spoken at their meetings, and an organization with whom he continues to have a close relationship.

I'm sorry I just nearly busted a gut reading this .... particularly considering the Wikipedia entry concerning JBS:

"The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic, and personal freedom."​

Now who exactly would be opposed to that ?


(.... Communists, fans of unlimited government, anti-Constitutionalists, and folks that don't believe in personal freedom ? )

"The society upholds an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which it identifies with fundamentalist Christian principles, seeks to limit governmental powers, and opposes wealth redistribution, and economic interventionism. It not only opposes practices it terms collectivism, Totalitarianism, and communism, but socialism and fascism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating US governmental administration."


​

In 2010 The John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference. (Oh the horror - everyone that attended CPAC is clearly tainted !)

.... all of this JBS foo-frah does kinda make me wonder exactly what that Pilgrim fella is all about tho' ....

 

[aristotle]

The good Dr. Paul speaks to thousands yesterday at the University of Missouri campus:

In my college days, we had many guest speakers visit our campus. As students, we were strongly encouraged to attend these events. Quite often, the guest speaker was a politician or former government employee. Professors routinely bribe students to attend speaking engagements by offering them bonus points to their cumulative scores. On some occasions, a professor would declare attendance was mandatory and we would be required to write a short paper on what we observed.

The point being, when you see Ron Paul holding an event on a college campus please understand it is a rigged affair. Attendance is greatly inflated by bribery, coercion and all manner of inducements limited only by the imagination of professors. Even for speaking engagements held off campus, the same shenanigans happen. Students are told to attend. These young, eager-to-please students dutifully show up as instructed.

Ron Paul isn't stupid. By speaking at colleges, he gets a free venue and a largely captive audience. Plus, his campaign photographer stands back snapping pretty pictures to impress the gullible.

 

[Turtle]

The John Birch Society? OMG! You mean those wackos who stand for an originalist, Founding Fathers-type of interpretation of the US Constitution by supporting a Constitutional Republic, of limiting the powers of government, advocating strong State's Rights, and advocating personal liberty and personal responsibility? The ones who are against the redistribution of wealth, economic interventionism, collectivism, totalitarianism, communism, socialism and fascism? The nutjobs who are against a One-World-Government, The United Nations, NAFTA, CAFTA and other political free trade agreements? Those crackpots who believe the Constitution has been watered down and devalued purposely to favor political and economic globalization? Those morons who dare to allow themselves to be characterized by others as a conservative, right wing patriot group?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you, that Ron Paul would have any association with such a group. It's appallingly a-Pauling.

 

[RLENT]

Ari,

Thank you for your insights on that - your college experiences differ somewhat from mine (.... actually quite a bit apparently ..... ) ... there was not much bribery involved .... but then I did attend a private college rather than a public one ....

BTW - do the professors also provide the Ron Paul signs to their students as well ?

Perhaps you'll offer your esteemed analysis on the crowd at Newt's do ....

 

[aristotle]

Ari,

Thank you for your insights on that - your college experiences differ somewhat from mine (.... actually quite a bit apparently ..... ) ... there was not much bribery involved .... but then I did attend a private college rather than a public one ....

BTW - do the professors also provide the Ron Paul signs to their students as well ?

Perhaps you'll offer your esteemed analysis on the crowd at Newt's do ....

Every college will have its cadre of Ron Paul die-hards who are true believers. Sign-waving enthusiasts eager to shout, applaud and pose for photographers. These Ron Paul supporters would actually be a small number but quite vocal. Ron Paul wants the imagery and optics of broad based support. Despite the propaganda coming from the Paul camp, he's pulling about 5% of Republican voters lately and fading fast.

 

[Jefferson3000]

...and the same Ron Paul who was the Keynote Speaker at the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society. Not the first time he's spoken at their meetings, and an organization with whom he continues to have a close relationship.

I'm also open to find out what the issue is with the John Birch Society. Wm. Buckley and others had issues with some comments made by Robert Welch, back in the early sixties. Welch accused Eisenhower of subscribing to many Communist ideals, which if you look at the growth of statism since the Ike presidency, may not have been so far off. But even Senator Barry Goldwater had the ability to parse whether some offhanded comments by Welch should reflect badly on the society as a whole, and made these thoughts known to Buckley this way:

"I think you have clearly stated the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

Goldwater also had stated elsewhere that every other person in Phoenix had been a member of the society, including many very prominent, conservative businessmen.

I'm not sure how demonizing the John Birch Society, or Ron Paul's speaking engagement, really argues anything negative.

 

[davekc]

If there is that many people nationwide at Ron Paul events, he had better get them voting. Running at 10 percent or under indicated a severe drought. It doesn't appear he can translate the votes, or it hasn't happened as of yet. One can argue many things but those are the current numbers halfway in. Likable and electable are two different things.

 

[Jefferson3000]

If there is that many people nationwide at Ron Paul events, he had better get them voting. Running at 10 percent or under indicated a severe drought. It doesn't appear he can translate the votes, or it hasn't happened as of yet. One can argue many things but those are the current numbers halfway in. Likable and electable are two different things.

Dave,

I'll just give an abbreviated version of what I wanted to say, but if you look at Alabama's election results, you will see that Paul got a bit over 30k in the popular vote. However, after voting for a candidate, the ballot asks for you to vote between pairings of individuals running to be delegates for the respective candidate. Votes for delegates of a candidate that you didn't vote for in the popular vote are not allowed under party rules. The least votes cast for a pairing of Paul's delegates is 67,000 plus, with the highest number being cast in one of those pairings being between 75-76,000 votes. Note that these votes were not counted if you didn't vote for that particular candidate. The question then is what happened to the other 45,000 votes for the candidate? No other candidate bears an anomaly such as this. Newt's numbers for delegate votes are in range for his popular vote. Santorum and Romney both ended up with 30k plus votes each above their delegate vote counts. There are only two possibilities: 1) They disregarded those 45000 votes, or 2) They were deceptively attributed to one or both of the front runner candidates. When I get back to my desk, I will post the link to the website.

 

[davekc]

That may be true or many other things. All I am going by is the end results that are reported. Now if there is something sinister going on, it has yet to be acted on. I don't follow it close enough to make that assessment.
I guess another way to look at it is where the democrats are spending their money. Regardless of outcome, if they felt a threat by Paul for instance, you would see them spend money in that direction. So far, that hasn't happened. Could they all be wrong? Dunno.