Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Has Ron Paul Quit?

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the internet-in-flames-film-at-11 dept.

Republicans 878

Lally Singh sends us to the inside-the-Beltway blog Wonkette for a quick take on a letter Ron Paul sent to his supporters. In this analysis, Dr. Paul has basically called it quits. "Late Friday night, Dr. Congressman Ron Paul posted a letter to his fans basically saying it's over, but he will continue talking about his message, and plus it would be completely embarrassing for him if he also lost his congressional seat."

cancel ×

878 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Real summary. (5, Informative)

Romancer (19668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363502)

FTA:

"Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron"

Re:Real summary. (2, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363538)

And the last flicker of hope for the current election goes out. Poof.

Re:Real summary. (2, Interesting)

linzeal (197905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363570)

This country needs a bit of libertarianism and a lot of the new deal before we further fall down the economic ladder.

Re:Real summary. (2, Informative)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363604)

Wouldn't that be instituting two nearly opposite policies at once..?

Re:Real summary. (5, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363702)

Yes, libertarianism for how to use a military and conduct some foreign policy and the domestic policy ala new deal. If we had taken the nearly 1 trillion dollars we have currently spent on the war and invested in this country's infrastructure we would not be in so many shit holes at once.

Re:Real summary. (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363776)

Exactly.

Re:Real summary. (5, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363814)

I submit that the fundamental problem with the United States is excessively concentrated power.
This is played out in both domestic and foreign arenas.
If there are indeed infrastructure problems within a state, why is the state impotent incapable of fixing them, instead relying on federal handouts?
Federal handouts put more layers in between the taxpayer and the civil servants managing the projects.
Thus, the real place to begin the reform is to avoid giving the nearly 1 trillion dollars to the Fed.
This simple logic can then be applied to the vampiric parade of entitlements currently sucking your wallet, and your future, dry.
Or is pointing out the elephant in the room unforgivably unfashionable in these United States?

Re:Real summary. (5, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364058)

The problem is that Republican candidates advocate a limited government, but only when it comes to wealth redistribution. They are perfectly happy to expand domestic surveillance programs, pass laws imposing their moral standards on everyone else (why should marriage definition be a federal issue?), subsiding big corporations of lobbyist buddies and so on. Basically, they want a government good for old, rich white men. I would vote for any Democratic, Republican or independent candidate who would vow to de-escalate federal power in an issue-neutral manner. For starters, apply the famed "strict constructionist" viewpoint to the rule that the feds will only be responsible for foreign policy, enforcement of constitutional rights of citizens and regulating interstate commerce in the most literal and narrow interpretation of settling trade disputes. Let the states define their own criminal codes and extradition agreements and prosecute crimes in jurisdiction(s) where they have occurred. Let some states decline to criminalize prostitution, internet gambling or smoking pot and learn from their own experience if they are willing to live with the consequences. Let liberal-leaning locales create their own universal health care and living wage programs as long as the residents are willing to pay the taxes. Let South Dakota outlaw abortion and teach biology from the Bible and deal with the consequences of most young women and college graduates leaving the state for California.

Until that happens, I would rather have some of the federal budget used on social programs and education than to have all of it be channeled into corporate welfare, unnecessary wars and enforcing personal viewpoints of the politicians.

Re:Real summary. (2, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363952)

If we had taken the nearly 1 trillion dollars we have currently spent on the war and invested in this country's infrastructure we would not be in so many shit holes at once.

I have to assume you mean our energy infrastructure. Our raw materials and manufacturing capacity loss is more about pay scale than infrastructure. I think improving our energy infrastructure would be great, but it wouldn't have much immediate quality of life improvements for most civilian Americans. A different handful of people would be getting rich right now, but that's about it. One of the longer term dangers to our economy is the loss of the dollar as the international currency. [spiegel.de] That loss is largely caused by our ballooning deficit. A "New Deal" spending spree at home wouldn't help any more than the current military spending spree. Currently the national debt is about $30k per citizen, [brillig.com] so assume you had a $30k lower quality of life and that is what we are likely to balance out at when China stops funding our spending habits.

Re:Real summary. (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363898)

Libertarian principles are exactly why people are falling down the economic ladder in the first place.

If Greenspan had actually regulated the banking industry we wouldn't be having the current subprime mess. Most of those people wouldn't have been allowed to get their loans until they had the income to support the payments and the banks would have been required to require ID and income verification before accepting the loans.

None of this should have been surprising, you offer to loan people money without necessarily knowing who they are and how much they make, on a building that you know perfectly well isn't worth that much, does it really take a PhD in economics to recognize what comes next?

The answer to this is a combination of social and educational reforms to make American workers more competitive combined with a fiscally conservative government that cuts the DoD and other out of control government programs down to something that we can afford. Paying off the public debt.

Bailing out the people that make dumb decisions at the cost of hurting those that behaved more appropriately isn't a sound plan for future prosperity. In the long run the protectionist policies which protect wall street at the expense of responsible Americans is just bad policy. The only thing which needs protecting in this country is job losses to anti-competitive nations like China and Japan. As well as the onslaught of cheep money from ignorant Japanese bankers.

Re:Real summary. (5, Insightful)

log0n (18224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363648)

We still have Obama. Party doesn't really matter anymore.. the country is getting further and further fargone and needs real leadership. McCain (war hero or not - honestly, it's noble but doesn't impress me) and Clinton both represent entrenched politics and more of the same old. Sounds funny, if I can't have Ron Paul, I want Obama.

Re:Real summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363688)

At the risk of sounding racist, do you really think a black man would ever be president? I'm sure there are checks and balances to correct this. (IE McCain)

Re:Real summary. (0, Flamebait)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363784)

In polls, Obama is better against McCain than Hillary. Apparently the racists are even more sexist.

Re:Real summary. (3, Insightful)

Bartab (233395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363850)

Because nobody can object to Obama without being racist, or Hillary without being sexist!

Re:Real summary. (0, Troll)

Uart (29577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363728)

check out vietnamveteransagainstmccain.com

Re:Real summary. (2, Insightful)

Shauni (1164077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364004)

Because it's not politics season without another Swiftboat controversy.

Re:Real summary. (2, Funny)

gotzero (1177159) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363868)

I more or less agree, but I am disappointed that Paul will not be out there embarrassing his competition by forcing them into awkward corners. This will not do well for our debate drinking games...

NOT the same old entrenched politics (4, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364080)

No matter who wins this race, it is NOT the same old entrenched politics.

My personal preference, in order of who I think would be best for the country, is Obama, Clinton, and McCain to win. Now, having said that, I have to admit, I don't see McCain winning as all that bad.

Yes, he will continue the war in Iraq. But you know what? Unlike George Bush, I think he has the competence to continue it in a manner in which we don't alienate the entire world and look like idiots to those who want us all dead. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against our troops fighting the war. In fact, I have an immense respect that I could never convey adequately. But when I think of how Bush has misused them... Well, being a Vietnam War prisoner, I don't think McCain will take our soldiers' lives so capriciously for the sake of building "political capital."

You know what I think is most exciting about John McCain? He hasn't kowtowed to the Jesus Crispies, and he's cleaning the clocks of people who do. If he can successfully show Republicans with brains (yes, contrary to popular belief, there are some) that you can be a conservative without being a sycophant to the religious nuts out there, that would represent anything BUT entrenched politics.

So yeah, I hope Obama wins. And barring that, I hope Clinton wins. But if neither of them do, unlike I've ever felt about George Bush, if John McCain wins, he'll have my support as President and Commander-in-Chief. Unlike the last two elections, I don't see this country as being a miserable failure at everything in the next four years no matter who wins.

Almost as bad as concentrating on just Florida. (2, Insightful)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363588)

It's hard to believe that Ron Paul's chief political strategy was apparently to hope for deadlock between the front runners so that he could attempt to sway people to his side at a hypothetical brokered convention. And this, while encouraging his own rabid supporters to spend their own money out of pocket to try to create a grassroots following. Could $30 million possibly have been used to achieve less?

Re:Almost as bad as concentrating on just Florida. (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363744)

At this stage, was there any other strategy left? This is the "I've tried until every last glimmer of hope was vanquished" speech, basicly you need to tell people that you didn't quit because you're a quitter. At aby rate, even when you don't end up in the majority it's usually a good idea in a democracy to make your opinions public and let those in government and others know that there's a minority which would like a different policy. It would hardly be the first time that more popular candidates picked up some threads from minority parties...

The complete letter... (1, Redundant)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363718)

February 8, 2008

Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans -- and friends in many other countries -- have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

Sincerely,

Ron

Re:The complete letter... (0, Flamebait)

ksalter (1009029) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364064)

One less fool in the running...up next - the Huckanator and his half brain!

Thank goodness (1, Troll)

bagsc (254194) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363520)

Now we'll be allowed to talk about economics scientifically again.
(NB: Paul's supporters believe in Austrian School "economics", which explicitly refutes science and empiricism)

Re:Thank goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363574)

care to back that up with something?

Re:Thank goodness (2, Informative)

MonsterOfTheLake (880659) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363690)

From http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=381 [anti-state.com] :

He stated that one of the central tenets of Austrian economics is that the laws of human action are not falsifiable. But falsifiability is an absolute requirement of a scientific theory. If a theory makes predictions about reality, it can be falsified. All we'd have to do is find what predictions it makes, then test if those predictions are true. If a theory makes predictions that turn out to be false, we know our theory is wrong. Our Austrians seem to be saying that if we observe one thing and our theory tells us something else, we should ignore what we just saw and continue believing in our theory. Our theory won't be falsifiable only if it makes no predictions, and if it makes no predictions, it's useless for anything.

He later said that the premises for human action come from the long-term observations of human behavior and don't need to be continually tested to see if they're true. So he's saying here that situations have been observed where some law appears to hold, in fact numerous situations have backed up the validity of the law. What's odd then is that he seems to be saying that if some other situation comes up that contradicts this law, we should ignore this because the law has held up in so many situations before this happened. But of course this new situation isn't any less valid than any of the others, it happened and if we're interested in the truth, we can't ignore it. Part of scientific reasoning is that we try to prove our theories wrong instead of right. We put them to all sorts of tests to see if they always make correct predictions, and if they continuously pass our tests, we call them good theories and depend on them, though of course they're always up for more testing in other situations and to be tested more accurately. If we have a theory that passes all of our tests for a long time, but then we find a new situation where the theory fails, we don't throw out the theory altogether. Instead we say that the old theory is valid under the circumstances where it was successfully tested before and invalid under the new situations. We'd study these new situations and come up with new theories that explained economic behavior there. Finally, we would, if possible, find one theory that could give correct predictions under the new and old situations without any artificial separation between the two.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

karl marx is my hero (1222496) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363584)

Lew Rockwell, the founder of the Austrian School is quite the crackpot when it comes to economics. Most of its "philosophy" isn't even accepted by mainstream libertarians.

Re:Thank goodness (4, Informative)

Uart (29577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363626)

Lew Rockwell is not the founder of the Austrian School. He is the founder of a think-tank that advocates that particular school of thought.

The Austrian School was founded by Ludwig von Mises and (Nobel Prize Winner) F.A. Hayek, among others.

Re:Thank goodness (-1, Troll)

wfberg (24378) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363748)

(Nobel Prize Winner) F.A. Hayek

Note that this is the "Nobel Prize" in economics, which is kind of like the special olympics.

Re:Thank goodness (2, Insightful)

Uart (29577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363610)

Economics is not a science. It is a "social science" like sociology. There is a quantitative dimension to economics, but the premises that said quantitative means are used to measure are entirely subjective.

Basically, you are an idiot if you think that any one school of economics can be right or wrong in an entirely objective scientific way. Because, on paper, the USSR should've been an economic dynamo, the problem of course was that people didn't act in the way their number's predicted...

Re:Thank goodness (4, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363752)

I've always thought the Soviet Union failed because it expected human nature to change. While it was saying, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need," the people were saying, "As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." Guess which slogan had more power.

Re:Thank goodness (2, Insightful)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363846)

There's a qualitative dimension to physics as well.

Basically, you are an idiot if you think that any one school of economics can be right or wrong in an entirely objective scientific way. Because, on paper, the USSR should've been an economic dynamo, the problem of course was that people didn't act in the way their number's predicted...

I think that's some strong empirical (i.e. scientific) evidence against Marxism, eh? Plus, as an economic theory, Marxism is non-empirical, like Austrianism. Qualititative/quantitative isn't the issue here, it's empiricism/rationalism. And even a social science is better served by empiricism.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364052)

Basically, you are an idiot if you think that any one school of economics can be right or wrong in an entirely objective scientific way. Because, on paper, the USSR should've been an economic dynamo, the problem of course was that people didn't act in the way their number's predicted...
While I agree with your opinion, how is that proof that they weren't simply wrong in the objective scientific way? Failure to understand the dynamics of a system is hardly proof. They could probably have done far better estimates with a realistic incentive model, which most of the time tend to give the predicated results. If you ask concrete questions like "Is it profitable to change computers every five years instead of three?" you can usually come up with very quantifiable metrics that hardly is influenced by subjectivity at all.

It's whenever you try to predict the future that all the fuzz comes up, because people create distortions based on psychology and belief that has no foundation in actual company finances. Also such ecnonomy is always second-hand because you can try to predict something out of a stock graph, but in reality you're measuring belief in the business model, the product market and the technology. Plus at least on short-time positions, it's when people realize the true value you make money. If you thought a stock is 20% underpriced but next year it's still 20% underpriced, that's not a money-maker. But if they next week hit record sales and people go "Wow, this was really underpried" then you have a money-maker. So it all ends up with what other people are thinking.

Re:Thank goodness (5, Funny)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363672)

That's good. Now, if only we can get Reaganomics recognized as the science that it is.

Re:Thank goodness (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363756)

Considering the economic wreckage that "science and empiricism" have delivered to the door, I wouldn't be too proud of traditional economic schools of thought right now. Measuring economic progress by the state of the stock market is a complete bust. The middle class and below are in pretty severe trouble right now. and have been for some time. A doctor's visit that cost $5 when I was a kid (the 60's) is now $90 (18x); fuel is up from 30 cents to three bucks (10x), cars from a few thousand to tens of thousands (10x to 20x and more), houses... houses are insane. In the face of all of this, minimum wage has risen from $1.25 in 1965 to $5.85, an increase of 4.7x altogether.

Maybe it is time for money to be backed by something tangible and valuable, instead of the federal nothing-in-reserve notes we have now, backed only by the printing of nothing-in-reserve notes on the one hand, and the incineration of nothing-in-reserve notes on the other. Maybe it is time for infinitely corrosive tax schemes like the income tax to go away. Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the world's police presence, and shut down all those foreign bases. Maybe it is time for us to stop borrowing money, pay back our debts, and begin to spend only those monies that we can afford to spend.

Not that anything like this will happen. The US is going to find out what continuing these policies far past where they even appear to be doing any good takes us, because very few people are willing to disturb the status quo.

Minimum wage? (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363858)

What has minimum wage got to do with anything? That's just an arbitrary number set by politicians. What if there wasn't one, would your argument then tell us that nobody made any money at all? You're going to have to come up with some numbers involving actual wages paid to compare to your numbers on inflation. And I doubt that's very easy to do.

Re:Thank goodness (5, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363882)

Backed by something? Other currencies aren't backed by anything tangible either. That's not the reason the US dollar is crapping out.

Re:Thank goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363886)

Whatever gave you the impression that economists measure economic progress by the state of the stock market? The reason the stock market is in the news is because many people own stock (directly or indirectly) and that public companies reporting on their results provides a (limited) insight in the direction of the economy.

Do you seriously think economists are unaware of, let's say, privately owned companies? Are they excluded from the gross national product? How about, let's say, inflation? Why, if I didn't know any better, I'd say 'inflation' and 'purchasing power parity' were economic concepts.

Re:Thank goodness (5, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364070)

Gold is tangible, gold is scarce, but valuable? The high value of gold is built on intangible desires just like the value of paper and ink that we place on money. It's metal. I don't have gold, I don't have any use for it, and I don't want the metal. I want the cash value of gold though.

A gold standard is just changing one object for another as a unit of exchange. You can use deer skins, rocks with holes in them, it's still money. If you want serious value behind the unit of exchange, exchange a valuable unit like a car or piece of machinery. Except those don't fit so well into a pocket. So you exchange cash. But cash makes your pocket fat, so we carry credit cards.

The real goal of a gold standard is to combat uncontrolled money expansion. There are a number of ways to accomplish that without arbitrarily pivoting on some random and irrelevant metal.

Ron Paul has some good ideas I'd support, but the gold standard isn't one of them.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

fpgaprogrammer (1086859) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363808)

Austrian economists say that people act irrationally thus questioning traditional macroeconomic models of supply and demand equilibrium. It is more of a philosophical basis for Libertarian economic policy rather than an analytic model for macroeconomic trends. An individual's notion of value is psychological and time-varying. To transform psychological proclivities into statistical variables is a proven way to profit, but it calls into question the very meaning of a value. Do you really think paper money has value except through mass hypnosis? How about illegal prime numbers?

Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363534)

... SHUT UP, INTERNET!

Whew... man, that feels good.

So what happens to all the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363544)

Did he spend it all?

Re:So what happens to all the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363628)

Shit son, all those white sheets and giant crosses ain't cheap.

uhh, are you sure? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363550)

the evidence [necromancy.net] doesn't really support that claim

Let's face it, it's done (4, Insightful)

daddyrief (910385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363558)

I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, and voted for him in the primaries. That said, reality cannot be ignored or distorted, McCain will be the nominee. Focus should now be reshifted to helping Dr. Paul keep his seat in the House.

Let's learn from our lessons this time around. (Money bombs -can- work, Internet support doesn't necessarily translate to high election numbers, the power of the MSM to shape opinion, etc..) Next time around, if we have another candidate who supports liberty, with a voting record to back it up, we can try again. I may be an old man by then...

So now it is up to me? (1)

PuckSR (1073464) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363824)

Well, as probably one of the only people who actually will get the opportunity to see Ron Paul's name on a ballot(he is my congressman), I think I should say something.

Ron Paul is absolutely INSANE.
He is an incredibly nice man, and one of the most available congressmen I have ever known.
But, once again, he is INSANE.

Now, with that being said, I will still vote for him.
Why? Because I agree with some of his positions.

I think that there are two types of people who like Ron Paul.
People who follow even his most ridiculous positions....and
People like myself and Bill Maher. We don't think he is right, but we think his insanity allows him the ability to be honest. Maybe that is all that matters.
That was also a bit of Paul's popularity. I liked the idea of a Republican who didn't approve of the war. I liked the idea of a guy who went back to the old conservative platform of cutting bureaucracies.

But, in the end, the Paul supporters had to realize they were having to try VERY HARD to apologize for Paul. They were twisting the words of a crazy man to support a much more rational platform.

But Paul will leave a legacy. His popularity showed other candidates that they can be more honest. We now have an election where people are going to have VERY different views. We have TWO parties again, rather than 2 groups.

Re:So now it is up to me? (1)

samwh (921444) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364014)

I prefer to think of him as "going beyond the impossible and kicking reason to the curb".

Re:So now it is up to me? (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364044)

I'm also in Paul's district, have met and spoken with him several times and dated a high-ranking member of his staff, and always vote for him.

But yes, he is clearly insane (as are most of his staff and rabid supporters, including the one I dated, but that doesn't affect my judgement of him :P).

I vote for him because he speaks honestly and passionately about things that need to be talked about, in a way that major party candidates don't feel they can.

NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, I can't hear you. (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364018)

I don't get to vote till June, you insensitive clod!

Man, first time I've ever declared a party affiliation, and the primaries are already decided six months before half the country has even cast a ballot. My vote isn't even good as a symbolic gesture now that no one is paying attention anymore. grumble, grumble.

Big deal (2, Insightful)

L4m3rthanyou (1015323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363582)

To anyone who's not in the cult of Ron Paul, his race was over before it started. He never stood a chance. No number of fanboys will ever change that.

Re:Big deal (1)

sunami (751539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363632)

Actually, if he'd had enough fanboys to outnumber any other candidates supporters, he would've gotten more votes than the others.

Re:Big deal (1)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363962)

If he had more people voting for him, he'd have more votes. Wow, keen political insight there. Have you considered a career with CNN?

Re:Big deal (4, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363658)

I am not in the cult, but I am very happy Ron Paul is running.

I saw my father change his political affiliation for the first time since he originally registered at the age of eighteen because of Ron Paul's message. That in itself is worth a lot.

I wouldn't necessarily have voted Paul, but I am glad my dad found a message to break through his increasingly jaded and hopeless view of American politicians.

Re:Big deal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363668)

I am not in the cult, but I am very happy Ron Paul is running.
No, he's not running. RTFA.

Re:Big deal (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363782)

His anti-war message added a lot to the Republican debates, and served to show by contrast just how terrible most of the other Republicans are when it comes to their warmongering. One thing I will compliment him on is his foreign policy positions, but I can't say I agree with him on much more that.

Re:Big deal (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363930)

What he has proved is that fanboyism works, to an extent.

Steve Jobs for president in 4 years!

Big deal? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363958)

Funny, but I read the title of your comment as "New Deal"...


Which reminded me of FDR, and how his isolationist policy kept the USA out of WWII for over two years. Oh, sure, he wasn't the only one, but do you think that if he had signed a war declaration against Germany in 1939 Congress would have bypassed it?


This strikes me as the biggest proof that Ron Paul is the nutcase some people claim. Whether you like it or not, the US *is* the most influential nation in the world, and you cannot withdraw from that role, just like that.

Why Is This On Slashdot????!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363598)

Oh sure, don't say a word when Thompson, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney quit their presidential campaigns, but the rumor of a Ron Paul quitting gets front page notice on slashdot??!!

Talk about bias, and slantedness. But I would have expected nothing less from kdawson.

Re:Why Is This On Slashdot????!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363806)

At least Guiliani didn't go down with the Gambinos.

and mainstream media isn't biased?! (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363812)

The mainstream media covered all those other guys. Slashdot didn't need to, except to look into all the candidates positions on technological and scientific issues.

Dr. Congressman? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363616)

What is he? German?

Re:Dr. Congressman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363912)

That would be Her Congressman Paul...

duh :)

Misleading title and summary (5, Informative)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363618)

Having read the Ron Paul letter, he's not dropping out: he's just admitting that his Presidential campaign is simply going to be a platform for his ideas, and that the real focus will be on his re-election to Congress. Here are some important bits:

But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

Re:Misleading title and summary (1)

cbart387 (1192883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363696)

Agreed. To me, it sounds like he's just shifting focus so that his bid for president doesn't ruin his chances of keeping his House seat.

The Texas congressman wrote on his Web site Friday that he is making cuts to his national campaign staff and that he must also stay focused on not losing the primary for his House seat.
from here [google.com]

He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (4, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363642)

With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.
What part of "fight on in every primary and caucus remaining and at the convention" did you people parse as "I quit"?

The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?

Re:He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363698)

What part of "fight on in every primary and caucus remaining and at the convention" did you people parse as "I quit"?

The "fight on" or the "every primary and caucus and at the convention" part?

The "for our ideas" part, which directly followed it. That's not a fight for nomination anymore; in other words he quit.

Re:He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363770)

The "for our ideas" part, which directly followed it. That's not a fight for nomination anymore; in other words he quit.
All the other candidates said they were fighting for honor at a debate, so by your 'logic', they all quit, since they didn't systematically use the word "nomination" whenever they talked about the process.

Can't I spend one day on this earth without that sinking feeling of being surrounded by idiots?

Re:He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363822)

It's unbearable, isn't it? You should go live in the woods from now on.

Re:He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (1)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363924)

Can't I spend one day on this earth without that sinking feeling of being surrounded by idiots?

Only if you give up that floating feeling of superiority when people don't obey your arbitrarily chosen rules for what would count as consistent behavior.

Re:He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (1)

eggnoglatte (1047660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364006)

The part where he said he would make reduce his resources (make the tema "leaner" etc) dedicated to the nomination campaign? Essentially, he'll stay on the ballots, but he will stop putting in enough money for posters, and events (he also wants to spend more time with his electorate). So yeah, he is essentially giving up.

Re:He didn't quit! Can't you people read? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22364056)

He didn't quit! Can't you people read?
No

He hasn't quit (1)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363646)

Geez, will you RTFA? He hasn't quit, quote:

But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get

He is just expressing that he also wants to win the primary for his congressional seat.

Although the only way for him to become president is for McCain and Huckabee to drop dead.

Re:He hasn't quit (1)

shadylookin (1209874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363794)

Although the only way for him to become president is for McCain and Huckabee to drop dead.
and Romney, obama, hillary, and Gavel. Face it when most voters think Ron Paul they think insane and would probably vote for just about anyone else. Love him or hate him Ron Paul never stood a snowballs chance in hell and this announcement should come has no shock to anyone.

What is the purpose of the Wonkette link? (1)

fractalrock (662410) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363650)

It is too bad about Dr. Paul dropping out...I don't subscribe to all of his beliefs, but any person who lives and dies by the Constitution is O.K. by me.

Re:What is the purpose of the Wonkette link? (1)

Monkeys with Guns (1002565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363768)

He isn't dropping out. The specifically say he is fighting on. He is cutting back on his national staff because so many of the primaries are over. He is focusing more on his congressional campaign because he can't lose both elections. Super Tuesday was the largest part of the campaign. With that over, any campaign that doesn't cut back is run by an idiot.

why? (1, Insightful)

motank (867244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363684)

Why does this website care so much for Paul? White supremacists and slashdot seem to be his only base of support. It makes as much sense as Obama winnin g the majority of liberal and conservative voters, and losing the moderates.

Re:why? (3, Interesting)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363816)

The reason is that tech people and libertarians tend to overlap as demographics. There are more of the former than the latter, but if you know what a Venn diagram is, you won't have problems understanding that.

For the record, Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN with some libertarian ideas - NOT a "libertarian", even though he ran once or twice on the Libertarian Party ticket. He's more of what they call a "paleoconservative" than a "libertarian". There is a wide variety of "libertarians", both left and right. The ones that end up in the Libertarian Party tend to be, as Bob Black once said, "Republicans who smoke dope."

And his support didn't come from "white supremacists" - that was bullshit media spin based on a couple donations.

I'm an anarchist myself, so I couldn't care less, but it was fun to see him skewer the other Republican candidates with their militarism and economic stupidity.

If McCain becomes President, we'll be at war with Iran AND Pakistan within six months - and the US economy will completely collapse as China dumps the dollar because they were cut off from Iranian oil and gas. Electing that senile old fool is a vote for the destruction of the United States.

Unfortunately, electing either Obama or Clinton will end up in the same place - it will just take a little longer as they screw around with "diplomacy" before starting their wars. Neither of them, let alone McCain, have any clue about US foreign policy.

Re:why? (0, Troll)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363954)

Why does this website care so much for Paul?

Libertarianism of the kind espoused by Dr. Paul is very popular among the more self-centered and socially isolated types who get into computers and technology. Too much time spent alone causes them to lose empathy and understanding for other people, making an egocentric ideology like Libertarianism seem very appealing.

Now there are 3 Liberals to decide between.. (2, Informative)

ScienceDada (1232890) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363694)

I got the email last night. So now 3 liberals to decide between... I believe that Obama is the best of the worst and I predict that he will win by an enormous landslide, perhaps even greater than Johnson. A significant number of those who would normally vote for Republican candidates are extraordinarily pissed off at the travesty that is the RNC and "party" now. And this is the party of Lincoln? I think not (at least, not in any recognizable form). It has been hijacked.

And I would probably be considered "a staunch conservative" by most slashdotters, even though I am really a moderate (at least according to http://www.politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org] ).

Can I be the first to say haha? (-1, Troll)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363704)

Ron Paul is a fuck-nut racist evolution denying fool.
He doesn't vote for things, just against them.

Considering that you have sites like ScumFront running threads on how great it would be if Ron Paul were president (because he would keep all those nasty immigrants out etc.), if nothing else he is tainted by association.

The fact is though, he never stood a chance. The Greens were getting supporters to vote for him in the Primaries 'cause they wanted a fool candidate for the Republicans, thus meaning more people voting "left" (thought the Democrats are hardly left of the Republicans in most meaningful senses of the word).

Anyway, haha.

Re:Can I be the first to say haha? (1)

psykocrime (61037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363832)

He doesn't vote for things, just against them

Good, that's exactly what we need more of in Congress. Unless the "things" are legislation intended to roll-back the
size and scope of the Federal government. And I'm pretty sure Ron would vote for one of those if it ever came to
a vote. :-)

Senate? (1)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363706)

Has RP considered running for the Senate? Individual Senators are more powerful than Representatives.

Re:Senate? (1)

Uart (29577) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363774)

He ran for the senate in the late 80's or early 90s, I believe.

And he came so close!! (0, Troll)

krygny (473134) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363730)

I've never felt very strongly about any Presidential candidate, or any politician for that matter. But every candidate has a small % of avid, fervent, even whacko followers. With Ron Paul, he has so few followers to begin with, they're all whackos.

Finally (3, Interesting)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363734)

Maybe the astroturfing and spam can finally end now. Ron Paul definitely gets the award for most annoying campaign ever. I've never received spam in my inbox from any of the other candidates. And if I have to ignore one more invitation to a Ron Paul supporters group on facebook I'll scream.

One question though: what happens to all the money he raised? I'm sure he hasn't burned through all of it, and he raised a lot from what I've read. Now that he's running a "leaner" campaign he will be using it even slower.

Re:Finally (1)

fpgaprogrammer (1086859) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363904)

>>And if I have to ignore one more invitation to a Ron Paul supporters group on facebook I'll scream. that's just their way of superpoking you. It was a Ron P'All Your Base Are Belong To Us' after all: http://ronpaulchocolate.com/ronpaulaybabtu.jpg [ronpaulchocolate.com]

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363950)

Troll? Ha ha. That's just brilliant.

If I had any doubt that Paultards were petty, spoiled jerks it's gone now. Very mature, mod down anything you don't agree with. Personally I would have gone with the "overrated" mod just to add insult to injury.

What can't anyone simply quit (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363802)

They prefer to 'suspend', 'go on hiatus'. Why can't they simply stop. Are they THAT BIG OF A EGOMANIAC?

Re:What can't anyone simply quit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22363944)

You can't run for president without an ego the size of Montana (or bigger). Everyone who has ever sought the job is some kind of egomaniac or another. Even if they truly, deeply care for the people of their respective nation, it's that passion that drives them to the belief that they are the one to do it.

Ron Paul & Lyndon LaRouche (1, Insightful)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363838)

The more I watch Ron Paul and his followers, especially, the more I think about Lyndon LaRouche, who was the first presidential candidate that made a campaign organization scarier than Jim Jones' People Temple, the Moonies, Hare Krishna and Scientology combined.

Perhaps now Ron will join with LaRouche as a running mate. If not Lyndon himself, then an non-felon appointee.

Re:Ron Paul & Lyndon LaRouche (1)

localman (111171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364076)

So you're basically saying that if people in group A are as passionate as people in group B, the merits of their ideas must be similar.

It's that type of wholly empty thinking that helps to make political discourse in the US (and maybe everywhere) nigh impossible.

Sigh.

I won't be surprised to find you complaining in four years when things are roughly the same as they are now. But, you know, don't let any scary new ideas challenge what you're comfortable with, even if it doesn't actually work.

Cheers.

The end of America (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363918)

People have shown that they have no ability to elect people who won't continue the country down the path bankruptcy or ridiculous war mongering. Hi ho, going to Canada before it's too late...this boat is likely going down in 4 years...

Re:The end of America (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363988)

It might sound harsh but going down might just be what America needs right now. Then come out of it wiser and perhaps a little stronger.

Re:The end of America (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364000)

That's a little dramatic don't you think?

Link to Source (1)

kryptKnight (698857) | more than 6 years ago | (#22363982)

The summary could have linked toPaul's actual post [typepad.com] rather than some biased blog.

The note was posted at 10:14 p.m., probably Central Time. It starts with an old-fashioned freedom-loving salutation ("Whoa!") and ends with an angry attack on the very hippies ("socialists") who elevated him from another nobody right-winger congressman running a quixotic presidential campaign to a hilarious national Internet fad.
Thanks for the insight Wonkette. . .

But (1)

cyofee (975070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364002)

Where are the answers to the questions we posted for the presidential candidates?

Check your sources (1)

OverflowingBitBucket (464177) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364010)

Wonkette reporting on Ron Paul? Check your sources people! It's hardly going to be unbiased. A quick Google search gives a rough idea- check the use of "Paultard" to describe Ron Paul supporters. Link [google.com] . These aren't reader comments. They are the articles. Wonkette has fallen from its glory days, and it's not just a recent thing.

Nonetheless, the news is somewhat saddening. It isn't clear if he's pulling out in spirit, or has just chosen some poor words to describe his new focus.

Goodbye Slashdot, I quit. (0, Flamebait)

Mazrim_Ta (129987) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364040)

I've been reading Slashdot for many many years. But that all ends today after this post. To have Slashdot quote wonkette of all biased sites on a story like this... its ridiculous. I give up. Slashdot has been a troll-haven forever now (they just proved it by linking Wonkette) and is usually 2 weeks behind digg with the news, so there is no longer any point of wasting my time here.. Peace out.

Two words (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22364054)

Ralph Nader 2.0
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>