Originally Posted By jonvn Remember Ron Paul? How he had all this internet support and all that? Where did that go? I think his candidacy shows that what you see on the internet doesn't necessarily translate into real life. I mean if you were to go by the buzz he was getting online, you would have thought he would have won the whole deal by now. But he's a distant also-ran. This same thing happened with the movie Snakes On A Plane. All this talk for months about it, and when the film comes out? Nada. What I think this says is that the internet really isn't all that important in shaping the tastes and ideas of the people in this country. Most people don't seem to take what is on it very seriously. Certainly internet petitions are openly laughed at. There were two lessons in this campaign it seems. One by Giuliani missing the early primaries, and two, by Ron Paul who tried to make a play for votes on the internet. Neither philosophy seems to have worked out well.
Originally Posted By Mr X Or maybe Ron Paul is so wacky, only the internet would back him...thus his only possible strategy. Seriously, have you seen the guy? Check out some congressional stuff on YouTube...absolutely loony-toons. The perfect internet candidate.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut X: just wondering what you think is whacky about him? He actually seems quite like the person this country needs for a president instead of some mindless robot that the other candidates resemble.
Originally Posted By Mr X Here's a few of his positions that I find either wacky or scary (or both)... *opposes overturning Roe vs. Wade (scary) *wants to abolish the federal reserve bank (wacky/scary) * opposes fiat currency (actually cool, but wacky cause it's never gonna happen) * supports jury nullification (wacky) * in favor of legalizing gold/silver as legal tender and an alternative to the dollar at point of purchase (wacky) Thing is, I actually kind of dig some of this stuff myself (thus the heavy internet support I think..lots of free thinkers and conspiracy folk abound), but it is absolutely wacky stuff because it sounds like he's a free thinking, conspiracy type guy...which is cool for the 'net but wouldn't work with the public at large. Maybe by "wacky" I really mean "50 years ahead of his time". I don't see how he could ever be elected president in his lifetime.
Originally Posted By jonvn *opposes overturning Roe vs. Wade (scary) You mean he opposes row v wade. If he opposes overturning it, he is in favor of it.
Originally Posted By Mr X Sorry, you're correct. Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade I should've said. Even in that aspect, and others, the interesting thing is that he's not really advocating abortions being abolished, but rather he's supporting the libertarian view of states rights and limited central government. He has spoken about the fact that government should pass NO law not specifically mandated in the constitution. I think it's awesome, myself, but way too progressive for the state of the nation today (maybe ever after as well). P
Originally Posted By jonvn Unfortunately, you can't have the states rights idea. The 14th ammendment sees to that. Everyone has to have the same rights in the entire country. You don't get to have a state in which it's ok to own slaves.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade I should've said. >>> Ah, that explains how he keeps getting elected. His district is near where I live, and it's not like it's particular known as the kooky part of town. But a strong position against Roe Vs Wade will get you a long way in the Texas Republican Party, and many voters will either stop looking right there or be willing to overlook quite a bit else. <<< He has spoken about the fact that government should pass NO law not specifically mandated in the constitution. >>> Specifically mandated, or specifically authorized? Sounds good in concept, but how do you in practice go about interpreting things like the interstate commerce clause?
Originally Posted By Mr X Specifically authorized, sorry. **Sounds good in concept, but how do you in practice go about interpreting things like the interstate commerce clause?** No idea. What do the proponents say about it?
Originally Posted By SuperDry Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce ... among the several states." This is known as the Interstate Commerce Clause, and is used as the Constitutional basis for a wide range of activities of the federal government. For example, the FCC's regulation of the public airwaves. At the time the Constitution was written, nobody envisioned even the notion of their being such things as radio waves, which allow for instant communication right through the air (well, actually through space whether or not air is present). Without the "traffic laws" of the spectrum, whereby rules of use for various parts of it are made and licenses granted, it would have been chaos and would never have developed usefully and to the public benefit to the degree it has (and as an aside, some of this is being negated through the allocation of unlicensed spectrum and newer technologies). So, when radios first came into being and it was clear that they needed to be regulated in some way, what to do? The Constitution doesn't say anything about the federal government being able to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum, and it would not be practical for each state to regulate it separately, since radio waves don't stop at state borders. But the Interstate Commerce Clause does say that Congress can regulate commerce among the several states, and under this authority the FCC was created. Without being able to interpret the ICC in this way, it would be necessary to amend the Constitution every time some new situation came up that the Constitution didn't anticipate, and in practice it takes years to get an amendment passed. But, how do you avoid the ICC turning into a "blank check" allowing Congress to regulate anything it wants? That's basically what it's turned into. You know the federal fair housing laws, which prevent a landlord from not renting to people of a certain color? President Kennedy signed them into law in 1962. Under what authority does the federal government have to prevent a private landlord in a particular city (or more to the point, a particular state) from choosing not to rent to people of a certain color, if state and local law allowed him to do so? I remember reading that at some point, President Kennedy was asked just how far he was willing to take the civil rights issues at the federal level, and he answered slyly "To the extent that they affect interstate commerce." I can't find a reference to this just now, so I may be remembering it wrong, but even if so, my point is still valid. So, just how broad is the authority granted by the ICC? I think that it's just too easy and a cop-out to be too much an ideologue on these issues without taking the practical into consideration. And in my opinion, a lot of Ron Paul's stances seem to fall into the overly-idealistic and un-realistic category.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<I think it's awesome, myself, but way too progressive for the state of the nation today (maybe ever after as well).>> This statement makes it sound like you are for his ideas but because they are not mainstream, you wont vote for him. Seems a little 2 faced. If I read it wrong or you wrote it wrong that I apologize. Personally I think a little off mainstream is what we need instead of par for the course which is what we seem to settle for now a days.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I'm not voting for Ron Paul in the primary because I'm "decline to state" so, in CA, I can't vote in the republican race, so I don't even consider if I would vote for him. What I think is interesting that if you don't take into account the money that Romney lent his own campaign Ron Paul was the biggest Republican fundraiser of the last quarter of 2007. Obviously he has some support somewhere, just not enough to get a signifigant amount of votes. In America, we so ofton complain about the lesser of two evils and the bland sameness that the "winner takes all" system gets us, and then when a radical like Ron Paul crops up we don't vote for him, because, well, he's radical. We're all waiting for a radical canidate w/exactly our views. Yeah, like that's going to happen, and when it does, like you're going to find more than 5 other people to vote for "your" guy.
Originally Posted By jonvn The thing is he got so much talk on the internet, he was doing so well because of the internet. The internet was going to sweep him to the front. Didn't happen. The internet is a non-issue.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 It's not a non-issue, it just is easy to get caught up in the hype. Remember how abuzz the Internet was when Chuck Norris endorsed Huckabee, that became over hyped as well.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, that's the entire point. Things that happen on the internet? Stay on the internet. The real world does not care.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut The internet magnifies the buzz more than it really is. Without the internet you wouldnt know (quickly and to the scale anyways) what people were saying half way across the country. So the internet seems to magnify the buzz by a power of say 10. Its still the same buzz but it reaches more people and at a faster speed. Also because its so quick to spread that adds to the buzz. But we know from the past that things that grow and become popular quickly also die a quick death. Not just presidential candidates but in just about everything. So your right, the internet isnt a large factor, but you could say that about several things. But also in a few cases it is the ONLY factor.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Without the Internet 99% of us would have never heard of Ron Paul or have known that Chuck Norris tears hold the cure for cancer, too bad Chuck Norris never cries....ever....
