octopus, obi or eden, can you just clear something up for me?
i've been flicking between this thread and the 1912=2012 thread and i'm just wondering how exactly the american system works.

so a party votes for it's leader, and this is done by all members, not the public?
then after debates, campaigns and what not, a president is elected from the leaders and independents. is that correct?

"Obi, does 'leadership' just mean telling other people what to do, in this context?"

No.

But there is a distinct difference--watch who's saying THIS now--between a philosopher and a king.

If you want to be a philosopher and debate ideas, by all means.

If you want to ACT on those ideas and LEAD and make THAT the first and primary focus, to lead first and to give sermons on the evils of big government, then you shouldn't be wasting our time and other people's resources on a campaign you're using as a means towards an end if you could care less if that end reaches Pennsylvania Avenue or not.

Again:

PERFECTLY alright, even commendable, to come into the Presidential race with ideas...but yo have to be in it to win it and NOT just to talk about those ideas...if your primary goal is just to garner a platform to talk, get a position at a university, and NOT in a primary...that's what bothers me about that statement, not that he has ideas, but if you have the attitude "Meh, who cares if I win, I really am just using this as an opportunity to preach my ideas."

"Also mind if I ask which ideas of his you *don't* find abhorrent?"

...Hmmm...good question as I find nearly everything about the man and nearly all his ideas abhorrent...and in a race with Ricks Perry and Santorum and Palin in '08, that he comes across as this disgusting politically and irritating personally...that's quite an accomplishment...

I'd have to say the ONLY idea of his which I don't absolutely hate is the idea of less military action overseas and a reduction in military expenses, BUT I would temper that cautious compliment by saying that it does harm my appreciation of this stance knowing the reasons RP endorses these ideas, and those don't resonate with me very well, and some rub me quite the wrong way.

So while that aspect of RP's ideology by ITSELF is fair in my eyes, I can't give it overwhelming praise because of the fact that all of RP's ideas are rather connected, and I don't like the overall web he spins, so this strand, however pristine it might be on its own, feels poisonous to me given the larger context.

@wogboy, for all intents and purposes there are two parts

1st, Presidency, filled by direct election by voters, not by congressional parties. Further intricacies of the prior candidate selection process explored here, by a personal hero:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkqEdlRDKfo

2nd, Congress, split into upper and lower house like ours (I'm 'strayan too), although it's a bit more common for different parties to control , and minor parties almost *never* get representation in Congress.

Unlike our system it's supposed to be full-on separation of powers - so the President never really leads his or her party (in a formal sense anyway), and congressional party leaders can routinely have different priorities and interests to those of the President. President appoints a cabinet and signs off on laws, but congress has to write and pass them first

Obi - sorry man but that really just strikes me as counter-democratic platonic elitist bullshit :3 debate needs to preceed action, and ideas (endorsed by the populace) need to *animate* actors if you're going to actually have a democratic society that's worth the handle. Obviously you have MSNBC and WP and the other shit but the thing about the debates is that they actually draw in people who are otherwise disengaged (by accident or design) into national discussions, even *despite* the debates mostly being vacuous. Now if you agree with me in thinking that a Obama v Paul debate would actually force each of the participants to defend their respective positions on a extremely broad and important (relative to former pres debates) range of topics (such as military and foreign policy, which are the main reasons why I hold my nose and advocate Paul over Obama) and that that would be a *good* thing for the democratic process in the US? Rather than say, having Britt Momney wheeling himself out and saying yes bailouts yes wars yes deficit yes war on drugs yes indefinite detention yes recent fiscal policy but guys don't you see Obama is destroying America because taxes on corps and high earners are too high? I mean jesus christ

Incidentally the first 40 seconds of this video does a nice succinct dissection of the sort of Presidential leadership angle you're trying to get across here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCxDtADnzu8

"You're telling me educating the youth using the biggest platform in America is offensive?"

EDUCATING the youth?

I thought he was running for office, not Dean of a University...

And it's oretty presumptuous, that term, "educating the youth," and I've heard it from more than one RP campaigner, this feeling that they must "educate" those who disagree...bring them to the light of THEIR views, RP's views...

Use "educate," and it indicates those views are not only "right" but *necessarily* right...

And THEY ARE NOT--almost NO political ideals are...

"All men are created equal" is really the only political idea I'd see as being universally "correct" in the sense that it'd be something that our youth should be educated in...

But to insinuate that Ron Paul's ideals should be educated to the youth of America?

Why not Obama's ideals--why are they worth less? Or why not Romney's?

For that matter, why not Marx's or Hobbes' or even Hitler's, to invoke Godwin's Law...HE had a thing about "educating the youth" about his ideas, too.

I'm not saying RP is akin to Hitler--such a comparison would be unfair and foolish.

But that statement, "educating the youth" about ANY politician and any political ideal besides the one exception I named, "All men are created equal" (which, if we're going to be technical, didn't even start out as a political idea, but a metaphysical and epidemiological one based on Locke's Tabula Rasa theory of how we gain knowledge and learn and become who we are) is ill-conceived and ill-stated...

And it's something that puts me off ANY politician.

When I've encountered those on the Far LEFT, and dare disagree with THEM, and they insinuate that my holding a different view is wrong and I "need to be educated" and brought to their line of thinking, ultimately, I am turned off all the same.

When a Jehovah's Witness member bangs on my door and, after I tell them no, I am NOT interested in taking their pamphlets and hearing "the greatest story ever told" and no, I have NOT found God yet and don't believe I care to find theirs, either, but thank you anyway, and they INSIST that I'm wrong and need to "open your ears, son, and hear the Word of God" ie, to EDUCATE myself, in THEIR image...I am turned off.

Thusly, I am turned off by Ron Paul and such supporters similarly, just one more reason I dislike him and the cult movement surrounding him.

Eden don't you know you are Hitler because you suggest that the audience might learn something from presidential candidate Ron Paul

also Ron Paul is like a JW because he wants to argue a public position

"Obi - sorry man but that really just strikes me as counter-democratic platonic elitist bullshit"

Well, I am a Platonic elitist... ;)

"debate needs to preceed action, and ideas (endorsed by the populace) need to *animate* actors if you're going to actually have a democratic society that's worth the handle."

Agreed.

But as my good friend Plato might say (as I'm cited as a Platonic elitist, I may as well invoke him) that one good leads into another necessarily, or more simply, one is a means to the other's end.

Which is which?

Debate is a means towards the end of action.

NOT the other way around...if Ron Paul is focused on the debate primarily and action secondarily, I see him has ignoring the main end of a Presidential election.

"Now if you agree with me in thinking that a Obama v Paul debate would actually force each of the participants to defend their respective positions on a extremely broad and important (relative to former pres debates) range of topics (such as military and foreign policy, which are the main reasons why I hold my nose and advocate Paul over Obama) and that that would be a *good* thing for the democratic process in the US?"

I don't think we WILL see an Obama/Paul debate, thankfully. ;)

But if we were to see it?

Yes, it'd be a nice exchange if they were concerned about winning...but ONLY if they placed winning and action first. I'm--for lack of a better term, and I barely feel adequate or worthy of such a mantle yet--an academic. I know who I am in that regard, and so, I can sit here at 5am and treat of ideas purely academically, with no intent to act or lead on these matters, not for any foreseeable amount of time, anyway, as I'm young yet, with no resources, and in any case, I'd much rather be a thinker and passer-on of ideas than someone to lead a nation...I LIKE leading groups, but to enact my ideas?

I concern myself with mostly academic matters, ie, is there a God...the point of such debates is to inspire action in OTHERS, not to lead a nation.

So, if Ron Paul wants to be an academic, he can go ahead and do so, and treat of ideas academically, and purely academically.

But if he wants to be a leader, he needs to do more than talk and use talk as a means towards an end.

For me, as an academic, the discussion and realization process is something of both a means and end in itself.

For a world leader, the discussion process CANNOT be the end in itself, it has to be a means towards an end.

And, since I'm somewhat on the subject, and this does bother me about RP, and everyone else seems to love this abut him, I'll mention this--

I DON'T like his unwillingness to compromise his beliefs and ideals.

Again, academically, you shouldn't compromise your ideals...they're your very essence.

But as I align very strongly with Machiavelli and Hobbes, who BOTH at some point in their works argue that if you have the advantage you should take it, regardless of a moral consequence or even if it goes against your previous inklings to achieve a greater aim (hence the "dirty hands in politics" idea) I dislike this in Paul, and find it surprisingly naive, both of himself and of those who cling to such a notion.

FIRST, this assumes that RP's principles are good to begin with and WORTH clinging to--I obviously don't feel they are, but even if you do feel they are, it's worth noting that the statement often heard, "Ron Paul sticks by his beliefs more than any other candidate, he doesn't sell out!" predicates its goodness on those beliefs themselves actually BEING good...this cannot just be assumed, or taken for granted, and furthermore, sticking to one's belief in itself is NOT a virtue--to invoke Godwin's Law again, if I were to say "Vote for Hitler, he sticks by his beliefs more than any other candidate and doesn't sell out!" I'd be well within my range to do so...but obviously no one would vote for Hitler save the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists and KKK and the like, and those aren't groups we consider desirable or at all correct or to be respected.

Again, NOT aligning RP with Hitler, but I AM saying, the statement above takes two things for granted for granted--that his ideas are good and that the state of sticking by your beliefs unswerving itself is a god thing--for granted.

Now.

Let's grant #1, for just a moment, and say, yes, RP's ideas are generally good.

I quite clearly think this is as far from the truth as can be, but let's grant it, for the sake of argument.

NOW take #2--sticking by one's belief unswerving is a good thing, to be valued in a leader.

Suppose, for a moment, you felt that it was categorically wrong to lie--EVER.
A knock comes at your door.
It's (hmm, already used the Nazis twice, better change it up) a KKK member with a torch.
Your neighbors, the Johnsons, happen to be black, and are in your home.
"Are your neighbors in there?" he asks.

What do you say?

Well, if you stick by your moral conviction that you should always tell the truth, it seems as if you're compelled to tell a KKK member in full garb and armed that your black neighbors are just inside.

OR you can lie about it...you compromise your moral imperative, "Don't lie, ever!" but you very well might have just saved at least one family's lives, two if we assume the KKK might attack your family as well for associating with a black family or daring to stand in their way if you resist.

Which sounds more of a moral act, here--the lie, or telling the truth and standing by your beliefs, regardless of consequence?

Another one:

You are leader of the Green People of the Planet Verde.
It is your core belief that all Blue People (from Azure, of course) are evil.
This is a belief that has been passed down in the Green Bible for millenia.
Thankfully, Azure and Verde are pretty far apart, with poorly equipped armies.
Thus, no skirmish can destroy both populations.
However, both armies soon develop Planet-Destroying Bombs.
The Blue leader calls up--surely this MAD is, well, mad...perhaps it's time for peace.
BUT, of course, your Green Bible tells you the Blue People must die in the name of Green God.

So.

Stick by your beliefs, unswerving, and blow up two words, or put aside your beliefs and deal with the situation at hand, as it is, and maybe save two worlds?

THIS is a problem I see with RP--that he would stick by his beliefs even if the circumstances would lead to a greater relative evil or negative state or loss, because of the assumption his beliefs THEMSELVES are CATEGORICALLY better and objectively right.

I don't believe there are many, if ANY objectively-true moral statements or ideas.

So Ron Paul's assertion of his ideology being objectively, categorically, in-all-situations-correct and worth-upholding-itself-regardless-of-circumstance correct is ill-conceived at best, conceited and naive at worst.

Politics and Rule = Dirty Hands, and compromised beliefs for the good of the many over the few ills, namely, those shattered beliefs sometimes.

Is it right to kill a mass amount of civilians?
"No!" we generally shout, outraged.
What if it's Japan, August 6-8, 1945, and it "ends a war" and "sends the boys home?"
"Drop the bomb!" Truman said, against all the moral inklings we'd hope a leader to have.

But Truman felt in that situation, a necessary evil, including violating his principles, beat the alternative.

Was he right?
I don't know, and frankly, I grossly over-simplified the whole thing, to try and wrap this over-long post up.

But the fact is, many if not most Americans--certainly then, and probably still today--would support Truman's decision, even though it meant VIOLATING his principles, OUR principles, because it's what he/.they felt the situation required.

And a leader must do that, while an academic need not.

If RP clings to his ideas' truths so objectively, regardless of circumstance, he's more suited to an Ivory Tower than the White House.

So many terrible analogies in one post. I'm going to be hard-pressed to address all of these.

Regarding "educating the youth." I didn't once say or imply that Paul's views should be the only ones expressed (whether to youth or generally). Nothing wrong with President Obama or Romney taking Paul's approach, should they choose. But they don't have to do so; Romney's decided he's going to be a neoconservative this go-round, which means he already has a large portion of America behind him, whereas Obama has consistently been part of the mainstream American left. Paul's views aren't part of either mainstream, and so he's had to build a following committed to libertarian ideals.

In that sense, yeah, I can see why you'd be irritated by them, because we are more or less like evangelicals, except in politics instead of religion. And if you happen to have had the misfortune of being contacted after indicating a desire to be removed from any calling lists, etc., then sorry about that. (Yeah, I can personally apologize - I did some calls at one point for the West Coast area, so it's possible we actually talked on the phone. Haha.)

But at the same time, frustrated though you may be, take a step back and put yourselves in our shoes. You're a member of a political philosophy that probably numbers around 20% of the electorate. You're passionate about your beliefs and honestly believe the best solution to fixing the undeniable mess in which America finds itself is if you can convince the greater voting public to accept your ideals.

What else CAN you do but try to get out and spread the word?

Hell, I'm a pretty ardent atheist, but I don't get upset when someone goes door-to-door evangelizing, or God forbid, one of my many diehard Christian Facebook friends decides to eat up five hours of my time discussing the faith. (Which has happened more than once, fwiw.) You have to understand that for them, the choice is clear, that they have to go out and evangelize. And while it is indeed irritating sometimes - we all succumb to human nature and don't empathize enough, and I know I'm particularly guilty of it - at the same time, is not the answer to respond with your own beliefs? You don't combat ignorance with ignoring. You combat it with informed response.

In the same way, if you really don't like Ron Paul, if you really don't like the burgeoning liberty movement, respond with your ideas, or tell 'em to leave you alone, but sitting here acting like what we're doing in using our resources to grow our numbers is somehow fundamentally wrong or insulting to the office of the President or to you personally is just... I don't even know where to go with that. Get some thicker skin, maybe, for starters, because the thought that you would take something like that as a personal insult is just beyond the pale. And then maybe just generally review your own philosopher-king concept, because Paul is as close to a philosopher-king candidate as you're going to find, even if you think his philosophy is bunk. It's not like he's just going to decline the Presidency once elected.

As for it being "presumptuous" to use the word "educate," as though it were an absolute: fine, credit there, I did not word that particularly well. Educate the youth *about libertarianism, and then persuade the youth to join the growing liberty movement. Note that I would use the broad phrase "educating the youth" about any such candidate which took this approach, irrespective of their political leanings, implying that I did not consider it to be an absolute truth as it apparently was nonetheless implied.

Finally, nice try with the whole "LAWL UR LIEK HITL3R!!!" bit, but *everyone* educates the youth. Parents, teachers, and yes, members of the political establishment, though generally not at the level of leadership of a presidential candidate. I suppose you'll start equating your dear Hilary Clinton with Hitler for expressing her own political leanings and attempting to persuade people of youth to join her in 2008, yes? No? Didn't think so. Let's keep the partisan nonsense out of this, hmm?

Okay, I made myself sit down through that last one, and... I don't know how you can change:

"His primary goal is to educate the youth about the virtues of libertarianism and to build a base of young people in the libertarian ideology so that the ideology he and others supporting him hold dear can actually have a chance of becoming a mainstream American political philosophy and affect serious change upon a tired, statist political establishment, but if he manages to succeed in the now and become elected President, he will do what he can to lead the country and fix its ills."

to:

"All he wants to do is teach, teach, teach! He doesn't even CARE about the office! He's an insult to the Presidency! He should go teach in a college somewhere in Bumfuck, Texas, 'cause this is for the big boys who want power, who cares about ideas, AM I RIGHT, GUYS?!"

Because what Ron Paul is actually doing is the first one, and your impression seems to be the second, and these aren't exactly the same thing, at all.

I need to get some sleep, Eden...

Because, at 1:30 Pacific Standard Time, 4:30 Eastern Standard Time, there's a VERY important event being televised, and after being awake most of the night and early morning, I need some sleep...

So, I'll respond...later...because frankly, at this point, all I'm really cognizant enough to do in between yawns is reiterate my same points, and those clearly aren't doing the job right now persuasively.

Not sure why you stayed up to listen to me, haha. I was up all night 'cause I slept from 2-9 PM, I dunno about you...

You better be ready for this! It's gonna be a good one!

My arguments are generally not page long unlike yours or Eden's :p but here I go, moderator's remarks.

The way I see it, there is no way Ron Paul is going to persuade the evangelical Christian denomination of the Republican Party that his way is the best way forward. His ideals, which emphasise personal liberty, are completely at odds with say, Bachmann's live-according-to-the-Bible-or-else lifestyle. Not that I agree with her - while a person is entitled to live according to the Bible or any other text or belief, he should not enforce it upon others. Which leads to an interesting question - is preaching personal liberty an infringement of personal liberty?

Discounting the Holy Americans, there is maybe, 35? of the population that is moderate-Republican. I agree that RP needs to do work here. Running for president in order to shift the debate could be considered as contrary to the point of election - to be elected, and there obiwan believes RP is in the wrong. According to his views any candidate running for President should make getting to the White House his priority, not education or debate-shifting.

Obiwan alleges that RP believes too much in the infallibility of his ideas (much like evangelicals believing that the Bible is infallible in every aspect). It is worth pointing out that 1. Americans don't like about-turns by politicians, and 2. Coherent messages during campaigning are good. RP does a good job of explaining what he believes, but he has trouble making other people agree. Which comes back to the point about 'educating the youth': is he 'teaching' his opinions to the young as if they are facts? Or is he merely informing them that such a view is valid and merits consideration?

here you go.

I'm not seeing how preaching personal liberty would be an infringement on personal liberty. Personal liberty explicitly excludes forcing people to take part in various activities, so anyone who insist on the right, say, to force everyone to marry heterosexually, as part of their "personal liberty," is doing it wrong.

And if the point of election is to be elected, then what Paul is doing can only be considered contrary to that point if looked at in a vacuum. Taken over time, it becomes clear that Paul's work to shift the debate his way is supposed to increase electability of other libertarians down the line. Whether that's working or not is of course impossible to say, because these future libertarian candidates obviously have not run yet; but the fact that his own poll numbers have gone from within margin of error of 0% to within margin of error of winning the general election were he the nominee (and going from about 5% to 20% in Republican contests) -- and the fact that where in 2008 the discussion was "How many more decades can we convince the public to stay in Iraq?" the discussion in 2012 is now "Should we even be considering other invasions?" -- indicates future success may be right down the road.

RIP Mitt Romney

I believe obiwan's point is that if you run in an election, you should be primarily hoping to win in that election, not the election in 4 or 8 years' time. It is a valid view to say that advocacy of ideas should not be carried out by means of presidential election (and its associated expenses and airtime) but by more general means that may cost less.

Second, PE, I believe you have yet to respond to obi's assertion that RP is too inflexible regarding his libertarian beliefs. I wish to see your response, either to disprove this, or admit that it is one of his failings, or some other answer that is not dodging the question.

I don't think Romney can win. I think he is going to fall into the trap of challenging Obama to a debate filled election like the republican primary. Romney is no war hero and Obama will not have to hold back. In addition Romney has this debate style that makes him seem anxious and sensitive to criticism. Barring another Economic meltdown I think Obama will have 4 more years.

I watched several of the Republican debate and I can't see how a guy who constantly says stuff like, Rick...Rick...Rick...Rick... My turn Rick... My turn... looking good against a polished debater from Columbia and Harvard

If the critique of Paul's style is that it uses up his money... recognize that he's only getting money because a lot of grassroots donors like what he's doing. Which means his message is sticking with some people. And how he uses those dollars - provided it's legal - is his own business. If his supporters don't like it, they can stop donating. If his opponents don't like it, then they're not compelled to listen to him or to donate.

And airtime? Firstly, he gets disproportionately less air time compared to candidates who are polling at similar or worse numbers. That the mainstream media doesn't like him and has, at the very least, very conveniently omitted him from a lot of their coverage is so overt and obvious by now that Jon Stewart's had, what, probably 3-4 segments of episodes devoted to it since last summer alone. And, again, the airtime is something given to him by someone else, as is whatever attention is given to his airtime. Clearly enough people disagree with obi's opinion that Paul can successfully use this form of delivering his message.

And yes, it does ultimately boil down to a subjective call, as far as I can see it. I'm not sure what normative evaluation one could give to the question that would stand a logical test and say objectively one should not use Paul's method of delivering his message. Which is why I haven't gone as far as to say "You're wrong!" because I don't really see what's right *or* wrong about the whole thing. It just kinda... is.

As for inflexibility: If it comes with ideological consistency, then I don't really care who the candidate is, I don't mind it. In Paul's case, I have a really hard time finding it to be a fault. His views are clearly not espoused by Congress at large, and it's not like we're electing an omnipotent dictator. Put this way: I am voting based on how I perceive the candidates' positions on the issues. The last thing I need is for some opportunist to show up and claim to hold x platform, and then once elected go do all kinds of different things. This is my primary beef with our system at large... voting on the issues strikes me as the only sensible method of voting, this only overridden by incredibly obvious trouble spots (health problems, for instance). And yet, very few candidates' records match their plans.

So yes, absolutely, give me a bunch of "inflexible" candidates who are inflexible on account of being 100% honest and consistent with their nominal ideology, and let me, the voter, decide based on a platform that *isn't* going to change 5 minutes after being sworn into office. Congress can deal with a stubborn President.

Further, when we actually take the specifics of these ideologies into play... as a libertarian, I want less government involvement in my own life, no? So why wouldn't I want someone who is dedicated to not interfering in my life? Stubborn inflexibility in opposition to the PATRIOT Act, SOPA, NDAA... where is this *bad*? And are there *any* other candidates who are actually going to stand up to those abuses of federal power? Of course not.

Here's the problem:

and I know this is a tired refrain.

The President is going to sort of suck in more ways than one whoever it is, since this, you know, the real world.

Obama would probably be a better president than Romney mostly because Romney doesn't strike me as having particularly strong morals.

I think there are two kinds of people crazy enough to get into politics.

The kinds that run for President are just like a juiced-up high concentrate version of these:

1) Narcissistic people who love themselves so much they just want to advance their position in society. Perhaps (but not necessarily) because of some other natural talents, they decide they are best placed to grab political power. A lot of this kind of person also goes into business and aggressively seeks promotion, or into the armed forces doing the same. Really selfish, really type-A. The most ambitious type of person there is. No morals here. Romney is this in my opinion.

2) Someone who has really strongly formed ideals and wants to see them implemented really badly. They will then do anything to achieve the result. The vast majority or realists or consequentialists who will do things against their own morality in pursuit of the "legitimate ends." This is your classic partisan, but they are not always politically normal or extremist. Ron Paul is this. Obama is this. Tea Party people are this, except for Type #1s who are just taking advantage of it.

So you will see both types deviate from their ideological underpinnings, whether those underpinnings are specifically aligned with a party ideology or not. The reason for #1 is that the ideology is just a means to an end - a way to take power. The reason for #2 is that he is making some kind of "lesser of two evils" bargain with himself. It's why Obama didn't close Guantanamo or why he's engaging in partisan battling which he repudiated in 2008. Romney is abandoning his earlier ideals just because he really wants to be powerful.

Neither is a great choice, but #2 is superior to #1. So in terms of the GOP candidates.

Santorum - hard to tell, probably #2.
Gingrich - definitely #2 - he is the definition of the nasty "realist" who serves an ideology
Paul - #2
Perry - #1
Huntsman - #2, he's just been unlucky/is bad at this

So there you go. Bush was probably #1 manipulated by #2's (Rove, Cheney). Gore, probably also #1 (look at his "revival" on CC). Both Clintons are classic #1s. Kerry is hard to say, I don't know enough about him. Seems like #1 though.

People can have elements of both, but usually you can tell where their priorities are.

Gingrich #2? Are you serious? This is the guy who shut down the government because he didn't like his seat on Air Force One. Even if this is not entirely true other actions like ruling over congress a an iron fisted dictator during his stint as speaker and attacking a president for having an affair while he himself was do not put Gingrich in the ideological camp. He is extremely narcissistic.

Ok, so I just have a few things to say.

I consider myself a moderate, leaning a bit to the right, but overall a moderate. That said, I find it abhorrent to stick solidly to one set of ideals, because where then is the room for compromise? Compromise is what gets things done in the political system, and gets them done in a lasting manner. FDR tried to get around compromise and force bills through Congress, and you know what happened? He pissed off the Supreme Court and lots of his New Deal was later struck down. Compromise is how you work this system, and how you live life in general. A man like Ron Paul seems uncompromising to me, and that's troubling. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who was willing to compromise on anything, which makes me dislike him even more, for he has an uncanny ability of creating zealots and radicals.

And while I agree with Ron Paul on some issues, I agree with Obi on the fact that the whole picture that he's trying to weave I find troubling. He paints a good picture, I'll give you that, but if he tries to implement it, it will be such a radical shift that financially, economically and...argh, just in so many ways... this world would not be able to handle it. Decentralization is all good to talk about, and is a noble idea, but do the states have the money to absorb the responsibilities of the federal government? Or do they have the structure? No. And moreover, instead of having 1 big department, let's say Energy, you'll have 50 smaller ones. And then who controls Puerto Rico and the territories? Gotta have another one for that. So in terms on manpower, you'll probably end up hiring more people to man this single department nationwide than it took with the one federal department, so in aggregate the government is spending more money!

Anyways, there are just too many things I don't like about Ron Paul and libertarianism in general which leave me unnerved by his support while a much, much better candidate - Jon Huntsman - is getting no attention whatsoever! This man was repeatedly voted best governor in the nation, was reelected with almost 80% of the popular vote to that position, was ambassador to China and to Singapore, and he does motorcross racing! Foreign policy-wise, no candidate can beat his experience. Its just sad that nobody pays attention to him. He'd make a great VP I guess, so I hope someone chooses him as a running mate.

And a side note, whatever happened to the days when the runner up in the election became vice president?

He may be narcissistic, that's not what I'm saying. I was saying that he is in politics because he is an ideologue who is committed to making it happen. I can bet that part of the reason he complained about the seat, wisely or not, is because he detested Democrats just because they were Democrats. We all have personal pride, but emphasis is one what their priorities are.

Goldfiner - those days were abolished after shit like

"After 8 years as president, I have only two regrets. That I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun." -Andrew Jackson.

John C. Calhoun, you'll recall, was Jackson's muthafucken vice president.

Lol.

But, if you are interested in the idea - check out AmericansElect.org

It's like a bi-partisan ticket. Very interesting; I am still considering them.

For instance, imagine President Jon Huntsman and Vice President Bernie Sanders.

Now I could get behind that.

All taken into account, Ron Paul still is the only guy who is going to try and put a stop to the ridiculous notion that we can manipulate/control the global market via lobbying and war profiteering. He might fail, his policies might not work... but it's still better than another big-bankster government tie like Romney/Obama/Bush or any other candidates willing to drop their pants for Freddie and Fannie/Citigroup/BofA etc etc.

In my mind we have either a peace candidate or a war candidate... and I'm going on the side of peace seeing the amount of nuclear energy we have harnessed on this planet and that I care for the progression of our species. Seriously guys, get fucking real... if these wars keep going on in the Middle East it's only a matter of time before we use heavier artillery and while you think you maybe be safe, what the fuck kinda world do we live in that we need to be dropping these kinds of weapons ON OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS?! They pose no REAL threat to us.... unless you've been listening to the past 11-12 years of war propaganda from our good old friends at the mainstream media.

Seriously call me a zealot or a radical... at least I'm being radical for PEACE.

I agree, Hitler. Solidarity bro (gee I never thought I'd utter something like that)

Obi, that was a hell of a long post, but mostly we're speaking at cross purposes. Elitism is based on a fallacy, the fallacy that ordinary adults need to be told what to do. If you look at the Presidency from this perspective you're setting yourself up for a fail. I think you'll find most of your peers want to live in a democratic society where we care about and what decisions are made, not one in which leadership is an 'end' (obviously ridiculous, am I missing something here?) in itself.

H69's right about Paul - he is a mixed bag. At the moment, only mixed bags are available. The trick is think strategically about what you're likely to get in terms of consequences from either candidate. Now I hope it's no great faux pas to say that Obama is a total disappointment across most issues of importance - I've listed some above, but they're no great secret. You know what you're going to get from Obama 2012 and it's going to be shit. So one would think that from a pragmatic perspective we should be looking for the best of the *other* mixed bags, so you at least give the dice another roll. An article that did the rounds a little whil ago by Green Greenwald hits the condundrum about what to do about Paul on the head, I'd be really interested if you let me know what you think.

"It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

"Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.""

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

I find the distinction between "philosopher" and "king" odd. If you convince everyone your philosophy is correct, then you'll never be questioned as king, because they all agree with you. If you just convince people you're the one, you'll be questioned at every turn. A more effective president is going to have vast public support and call on it any time he needs congress to be swayed. Better, he will mold the public so much into his own ideology, that the elected congress *also* agrees with him, giving him vastly more power than Obama has even with the recent legislation. Seems like a brilliant strategy to me and better for long term gains rather than short term.

*sigh - if only the rest of the world could vote for your leader...