Read all about it. If I had any doubt before, I now know for sure that I won't be voting for Romney.
I wonder how Romney feels about getting the endorsement of a petulant, globalist, pseudo-patriotic traitor. Like one himself?
Another thing that I'm seeing a lot of on blogs and sites that support Ron Paul: the notion that Paul will not be "allowed" to win, the idea being that TPTB have already ordained who is acceptable and who is not. And Paul is not. He threatens lots of interests, including the money interest, the war machine, the bureaucracy, the diversity racket, and probably lots more.
The thing is, despite we on the alt-right being of an unusually cynical nature, last I checked, the U.S. was still a democracy and each registered voter gets one vote each. What's behind the idea that Paul won't be allowed to win is that those in charge will pull out all the stops to prevent it. The media will intensify its attacks on him, and... what else? It all depends on the media being successful in its attacks, and from what I can see, they aren't working so well at the moment.
I've usually read his not being allowed to win formulated as Ron Paul dying under mysterious circumstances, i.e., assassination by TPTB.
ReplyDeleteThere may be something in the GOP nomination process that would, somehow, out and out bar him from securing the nomination, but I don't know what that might be.
Dennis, what are you saying? That you won't vote for Romney in the primary, or you won't vote for him in the general election?
ReplyDeleteI presume that you would vote for Romney in the general election against Obama at least? I presume your dislike of Romney doesn't exceed your dislike of Obama?
I expect Romney will take the nomination, then pick somebody like Santorum or Bachman to shore up his right flank for the general. (or perhaps even for the later primaries)
ReplyDeleteRomney strikes me a a big improvement over Bush and McCain. That's not saying a lot I guess, but it's something.
The Paulbots think that the Election Machines are rigged with software to prevent Paul from winning. But then, they also think that the CIA and Mossad perpetrated 9/11, and that AIDS is a manmade virus made by the CIA to kill undesirables like NAMs and homosexuals, so you should not take their claims very seriously.
ReplyDeleteThey just can't believe that an uncharismatic doddering old man with Libertarian fantasies could POSSIBLY be a turn-off to the average voter! I mean just look at his lack of stature, his completely laughable record in Congress, and his low unimpressive tone of voice as he tries desperately to convey some point. How could anyone not be overjoyed to nominate that guy?
It has to be an overly elaborate and poorly concealed Conspiracy! Conspiracy they say!
Every leftist I know loves talking about how she is surprised that "they" haven't killed Obama yet, but sad to "know" that "they" soon will.
ReplyDeleteMe, I'm surprised they haven't killed Paul. I'll be sad if they do. So I'm not so terribly different from the leftists, though I am well aware I can't predict the future.
Bachmann was a creature of AIPAC. The only reason for Bachmann's run was to neutralize reduce Ron Paul's impact in Iowa. From day one, everything about Bachmann's campaign as been custom designed for that purpose and no other. AIPAC would never in a million years support a candidate that had a chance in hell of actually implementing immigration restriction. They fashioned Bachmann into an Iowa-only lightning-rod. The reason Bachmann was easily the best on immigration is that AIPAC knows more about the US body politic than we do about ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAs for Romney, he'll probably do more damage than would Ron Paul simply because his lack of integrity makes it likely that whatever his intent, business as usual will prevail. At least with Ron Paul, if he carries out erroneous policies on immigration, he will have enough integrity to actually compare the outcome predicted by Austrian school ideologues to the actual outcome. Of course, it may be too late to reverse the damage by then but at least he may set the stage for the peaceful devolution of powers to the States so the States can set up their own border controls.
even if i had never read anything about Ron Paul, i would vote for him just based on how badly the corrupt government, media, corporate sharks want to keep him out. that alone would make me think him a worthwhile choice.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see Ron paul win not because I agree with all his policies, austrian economics is riddled with problems, but because his policies would be healing for a country were the government is overweaning and devoted to non white ethnic interest, our foreign commitments untenable and all our politician in thrall of special interest, paul whatever else his philosophies is against those things he is also a man of integrity what he has said he will do is what he has done.
ReplyDeleteThat said he will not win the nomination. His best chance was Iowa if the ron paul wave the paulbots predict was going to happen it would have happened there. If he had won and won, substantially it would have changed the narrative and encouraged his supporters to get out in states he is unlikely to win now based on his polling, he also might have started to bring in the anti Romney vote, as well as motivating the young and independant core of his supporters.
Without the win in Iowa he will fade, he can do a ok in NH but is bad fit for the politics of the south, by super tuesday his candidacy will look irrelevant.
At this point I would say romney has about a 75 percent shot at the nomination with Gingrich as his only real rival.
Oh please. McCain won because Republican voters preferred him more than say, Romney, or Paul, or Huckabee. He won because he got the most delegates.
ReplyDeleteYour problem is with Republican voters. There's a reason they are called the stupid party.
Ron Paul has brought home the pork big time (he's got zero integrity for a Libertarian, given his earmarks and such). He's accomplished nothing in Congress, he's out for quick bucks and notoriety, wanting Sarah Palin / Mike Huckabee style money and payoffs. Books, appearance fees, and so on. His views on military force, spending, Iran, and so on appeal to DEMOCRATS (apparently a substantial amount of his voters in Iowa were either Dems or non-affiliated). Not Republicans.
Paul's incoherent attacks on Gingrich (calling him a chicken-hawk ... for ... well not being in Congress at all in the 2000's.) Paul himself voted for the AUMF against Afghanistan. And he's against military action?
Romney is not a guy I love, out of them all he's the one best placed not to piss off White professional women who can and do swing votes between parties.
Santorum is a non-starter I hope as a VP candidate. I like him a lot, but his pro-life and Christian faith turn off critical, White female professional voters. Better Rubio or Jindal, both non-White, commanding, that matters more than you think with that voting bloc.
Obama is so bad, I'd vote for PAUL over him. Romney, no problem. Reagan was not that great either (IRCA?) I can live with Romney.
Santorum is on record as having said a state has the right to ban birth control, any artificial form of birth control.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked tonight about that "extreme view," by Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly, Santorum wiggled around and said, "Well, I didn't say I'd vote for that--I wouldn't-- just that a state has the right to pass a law that does that."
Yeah, right--a conservative, he calls himself.
He argues that a state or the feds have no "right" to pass a law regulating health care, but he believes a state has a right to pass a law regulating any and all birth control devices and measures.
One wonders when he will tell me I can and can't have sex.
Self righteous piece of dung.
I can't say the thought didn't cross my mind yesterday as Paul started falling behind that the whole thing was fixed. Not saying I really think that's what happened - I wouldn't bet any money on the proposition (ok, if you gave me *really* good odds I might), but naive faith in the integrity of the American governing class these days borders on psychosis.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, assuming Dennis is right that "each registered voter gets one vote" and there's no "Paul Protection Team" in place ready to spring into action if Paul's support starts to grow etc., his chances were badly marred by losing Iowa. As the first real threat to the Judaeo-liberal status quo since Pat Buchanan, he needed tons of momentum out of the starting gate and missed a big opportunity.
He's accomplished nothing in Congress, he's out for quick bucks and notoriety, wanting Sarah Palin / Mike Huckabee style money and payoffs. Books, appearance fees, and so on.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm sure he's in it for all the money, fame, and mistresses he gets to bed every night.
Paul's incoherent attacks on Gingrich (calling him a chicken-hawk ... for ... well not being in Congress at all in the 2000's.) Paul himself voted for the AUMF against Afghanistan. And he's against military action?
It wasn't incoherent. Paul called Gingrich a chickenhawk for not serving in Vietnam. Paul voted for military action against Afghanistan and for killing bin Laden. He's not against "military action" in the abstract.
McCain won because Republican voters preferred him more than say, Romney, or Paul, or Huckabee.
ReplyDeleteMcCain did not not win a majority of primary votes. He won with a plurality in a very divided field.
He argues that a state or the feds have no "right" to pass a law regulating health care, but he believes a state has a right to pass a law regulating any and all birth control devices and measures.
ReplyDeleteA state (aka the people who make up a state) does have the right to right to pass a law regulating any and all birth control devices and measures. Griswald was one of many unconstitutional rulings from the Brennan court.
To be honest, most of Paul's positions would probably be optimally advanced if the powers that be DID whack him. That would enable another,more charismatic leader, perhaps even his own son, to wave the bloody shirt. Given his age, I wouldn't put attempting to draw a personal foul, so to speak, past him.
ReplyDeleteWhiskey, I believe you more annoying the yan shen. You have your own blog and yet never seem to comment there. Maybe if you throttled back with your same old stuff on mangans, isteve and stuff black people don't like, you might find the time to update your blog.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I will offer you a challenge. Given your preference for trolling on alt-right blogs, why don't you ever post at Vox Day's site? Vox often writes in support of Ron Paul and it would be interesting to see you post your comments. Of course, keep in mind that Vox has a policy that other bloggers don't. You are free to post, but if you are questioned by another commenter, you must answer the question or not post. In other words if you spout off about something and somebody calls you out, you cannot just keep posting bullshit. You must address the other commenters before you change the subject. I guess that is why you never post there.
Despite Paul finishing third, he has made quite an accomplishment. He is probably the most libertarian candidate to get mainstream support since the New Deal. Its surprising he got the amount of support he did in Iowa. Despite the media and pundits ridiculing Iowa as a overly white and Christian state, its politics is a glaring example of what's wrong with the country.
ReplyDeleteJohn McCain was written off in Iowa in 2008 because he was one of the few Senators to fight against farm subsidies. If you look at the population of some of these rural communities, you will find that a substantial amount of able bodied men and women collecting "disability" checks. It also has no problem re-electing one of the most left-wing Senators to Washington every six years.
When you look at the conservative Republicans in the state and elsewhere, you have to concede a good portion of them tune in to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, so they get a barrage of propaganda about Ron Paul's "insane" foreign policy. As far as the evangelicals are concerned, Ron Paul does not jive with their media message from leadership that there is a global jihad against Christians and Jews and we need to do whatever it takes to protect and fight for "God's Chosen People." So factoring all of this in, Ron Paul should be content.
I will also add another positive part of the Paul finish in Iowa..is that it paves the way for a candidate that is more polished and more moderated to make significant gains. Perhaps this will be his son, Rand. Ron Paul's extensive tenure in Congress and as a high profile libertarian makes it near impossible to backtrack on his philosophy. He also comes across as almost "too genuine" to flip-flop over significant issues.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the next one to follow in his tracks can say in a debate that drug laws should be modified without scaring the electorate by proposing that the government decriminalize crack cocaine...or promoting a more limited foreign policy without being accused of wanting to eliminate the CIA ect.
The real problem with Paul is that he has a ceiling to his support, which means that as the field narrows, it will be harder for him to win any states and the vote margin between the winner and Paul will get larger.
ReplyDeletePaul came close to winning Iowa, but it was a six or seven-man race (depending on whether you count Huntsman) and no one got more than 25% of the vote. In a 3 or 4-man race, I doubt Paul would have done much better, and Santorum (and maybe Romney) likely would have.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103
ReplyDelete"This caucus, let’s face it, marks the beginning of a long, rigidly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions, and award power to the candidate who least offends the public while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests.
If that sounds like a glib take on a free election system that allows the public to choose whichever candidate it likes best without any censorship or overt state interference, so be it. But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.
That damning statistic just confirms what everyone who spends any time on the campaign trail knows, which is that the presidential race is not at all about ideas, but entirely about raising money."
The real problem with Paul is that he has a ceiling to his support, which means that as the field narrows, it will be harder for him to win any states and the vote margin between the winner and Paul will get larger.
ReplyDeletePaul came close to winning Iowa, but it was a six or seven-man race (depending on whether you count Huntsman) and no one got more than 25% of the vote. In a 3 or 4-man race, I doubt Paul would have done much better, and Santorum (and maybe Romney) likely would have.
That is true. That's why I want him to run as a 3rd party candidate. If he goes through the GOP primary and loses, he and his supporters will be expected to rally around the nominee and become incorporated in the GOP message like in 2008. As a result all the ideas about limited government, interventionism, etc., will be lost down memory hole.
If he ran as a third party, it would force the GOP, and maybe even the democrats, to address the concerns that Paul espouses. Given the razor thin margins in elections, the GOP especially could not afford to watch 5% of the electorate leave.
Think about how both parties end up pandering to a select few in 3 or 4 battleground states each cycle. It seems they spend inordinate amounts of time campaigning in Fl and OH while completely neglecting states like MA, KS, NE, NY, CA and others that are solidly one party or the other. If people who support Paul blindly fall in line with the GOP, they will be taken for granted just like blacks and evangelicals. By remaining independent, they stand a better chance of actually having the parties seriously consider their issues lest they lose those votes.
In Spite of Bachmann’s poor showing in Iowa, she deserves team credit for catching many media arrows that otherwise would have been aimed at the other Republican candidates. Whiskey’s view of feminism is fundamentally correct. The media had a particular yen against her because she was a successfully married conservative white woman with a lot of children and the embodiment of everything feminist’s hate. Most of the mainstream media, which bends over backwards to attract women viewers / readers, simply could not abide by her and so when after her relentlessly even though her poll ratings were unwinnably low. Now all that attention will be redirected at the remaining GOP candidates starting probably with Santorum and Perry. Romney might end up benefiting from the crowed field because the Democrats cannot make up their minds which one the hate the worst.
ReplyDelete@ Whsikey from Anonymous -- "Finally, I will offer you a challenge. Given your preference for trolling on alt-right blogs, why don't you ever post at Vox Day's site? Vox often writes in support of Ron Paul and it would be interesting to see you post your comments. Of course, keep in mind that Vox has a policy that other bloggers don't. You are free to post, but if you are questioned by another commenter, you must answer the question or not post. In other words if you spout off about something and somebody calls you out, you cannot just keep posting bullshit."
ReplyDeleteWhiskey's MO is that he posts one or two idiotic rambling posts on an altright site and disappears until the next topic. He's jewish apparently and If you're not anti-semetic before you start reading his drivel, you will be after.
"Finally, I will offer you a challenge. Given your preference for trolling on alt-right blogs, why don't you ever post at Vox Day's site? Vox often writes in support of Ron Paul and it would be interesting to see you post your comments."
ReplyDeleteI would love to see Whiskey spew forth at Vox's site. Holy shit what an ass kicking that would await Mr. Whiskey. A nice pleasure in life is reading Vox excoriate the average pseudo-intellectual. I would even be willing to put $50 towards a Vox vs. Whiskey challenge. Maybe if 20 people put up $50 we could have a $1,000 Vox vs. Whiskey challenge on the merits of Ron Paul.
My personal question to you Whiskey? When you see a Persian woman who looks like this:
http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/iraniangirl.jpg
is your first thought that she might need some masculine affection that you are ready to provide or do you think that she might be better served by having her face blown off like this young girl in Pakistan: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102804.html
I bet Ron Paul doesn't think the first woman needs his affection but at least he sure as hell won't blow off her face for senseless reasons. The world is not against America, but some are against our idiotic policies.
JMO: Clearly there isn't any candidate worth voting for. Not really. Paul attracts interest/attention because of his iconoclastic views on, and outspoken comments about, financial institutions, specifically the Federal Reserve.
ReplyDeleteMcCain is just another example of a politician who does not have the decency to retire and go away. Guys like him are why people propose term limits.
@Anonymous 9:11pm
ReplyDeleteCouldn't it be that the powers that be want Paul to run as a third party candidate and split the anti-Obama vote?
Romney has the best Numbers USA score of the remaining canidates, and he did get Tancredo's endorsement in 2008.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see Whiskey vs. Vox. Put it on Pay Per View like a boxing match.
ReplyDeleteMy personal question to you Whiskey? When you see a Persian woman who looks like this:
ReplyDeleteHe would say she deserves to be bombed because she hates hates HATES beta males.
The best scenario at this point is that Paul stays in the race and keeps the volume turned up on his positions that make sense, mainly about our screwed economic system. Even though the political/Wall Street/media cartel will go into overdrive to neutralize the message, it will enter the political bloodstream. Just getting people to think about some of his points will be an accomplishment. Even some of his ideological libertarianism that I don't agree with can be a valuable counterweight to business as usual.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of which president is elected in 2012, this isn't likely to be the year when the worm turns big time. But in the best case, it could lay the foundation for a political revolution in succeeding years.
Frankly, I am undecided whether it would be better to have Obama re-elected, continuing to create revulsion that will work against him and his ilk in the future, than a "wet" Republican like Romney. There's no denying that four more years of the Failed Messiah will be dangerous, but it will boost resistance in a way that no RINO president can.
poultry inspector: Couldn't it be that the powers that be want Paul to run as a third party candidate and split the anti-Obama vote?
ReplyDeleteWell yeah, but TPTB have for years now been brow-beating us into maintaining the status quo by the "oooh, but if you split the vote a sca-wy liberal will win" tactic. How's that been working out for us?
I think it's very probable that Obama will be re-elected over (probably) Romney, and I don't think it makes any difference to the interests of me or mine one way or the other. There's only a slight non-overlap between the set of globalist crapweasels that Romney represents and the set of globalist crapweasels that Obama works for. To the extent that Romney espouses policies that appear to align with my interests, he's a lying sack of shit.
I came across a set of caucus-result breakdown stats (can't remember where) that showed very high support for Paul among the younger (and particularly young male) demographic. Remember, Iowa skews old, and it was the oldsters who gave Romney the win. Now, this may mean nothing more than that young people get all excited about new/marginal/"idea" candidates, and they'll grow out of it. After all, they got their stupid young selves all excited about the Zero, too. On a more optimistic note, perhaps they're looking at their parlous futures, and seeing the RINO clowns on offer a lot more realistically than their complacent elders. I know that my own children (college age) and their peers are feeling profound insecurity about their prospects, while my own age-peers tend to have a maddeningly obtuse, "it'll be morning in America again if we just get rid of the Dems", MSM-derived view of the world.
"I came across a set of caucus-result breakdown stats (can't remember where) that showed very high support for Paul among the younger (and particularly young male) demographic."
ReplyDeleteAge is at the heart of the conflict between the Ron Paul voters and the same-old-same-old offered up by the geriatric, closet-homo Republican establishment which has, quite frankly, cheated young white men out of their American birthright with their insane pro-Wall Street, pro-immigration policies.
These old idiots are muttering about the dangers of online porn and too much beer and video games and how young men need to "man up" and marry their bitchy, entitled daughters and go die for Israel. And for God's sake stop all that talk about white ethnic interests--we're trying to get Juan the Pine Straw Technician to vote Republican! I need not remind anyone here of the smug, smirking arrogance and contempt of John McCain and old queen Lindsey Graham for all those 'angry white guys.'
Paul will not get the nomination, and the young white men whom the Grand Old Plutocrats hate, hate, HATE (and I mean that literally) will stay home with their beer and video games.
Anti-Gnostic: These old idiots are muttering about the dangers of online porn and too much beer and video games and how young men need to "man up" and marry their bitchy, entitled daughters and go die for Israel. And for God's sake stop all that talk about white ethnic interests--we're trying to get Juan the Pine Straw Technician to vote Republican! I need not remind anyone here of the smug, smirking arrogance and contempt of John McCain and old queen Lindsey Graham for all those 'angry white guys.'
ReplyDeleteAG, just wanted to compliment you on this paragraph of fine quality spleen. Warmed the ol' cockles, it did.
What Rick Darby said....
ReplyDeleteAny Whiskey post is just a reductio ad feminas arguement. I haven't started to completely ignore his posts, but right now I only read the first line (wherein some matter, problematic or otherwise, is declared as so), then the last one (wherein women are to blame).
ReplyDeleteThere's no denying that four more years of the Failed Messiah will be dangerous, but it will boost resistance in a way that no RINO president can.
ReplyDeleteBy that logic, what we really need is for the Democrats to control the WH, House and Senate for the next twenty years. Just think of all the resistance that will boost!
There is a logic to "the worse, the better", but that logic has nothing to do with changing the GOP.
And for God's sake stop all that talk about white ethnic interests--we're trying to get Juan the Pine Straw Technician to vote Republican!
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the sentiment, I think you're kidding yourself if you imagine that Ron Paul shares it. He's no Tom Tancredo.
"While I agree with the sentiment, I think you're kidding yourself if you imagine that Ron Paul shares it. He's no Tom Tancredo."
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree, though what a President Paul would actually do is unknowable. Suffice to say, the Ron Paul movement is an overwhelmingly 1) young 2) white 3) male movement, precisely because of the anti-youth, anti-white and anti-male policies favored by the Republican establishment.
The logic among white nationalists who support Paul is he would at least curtail the civil rights/welfare gravy train that enables the rent-seeking by immigrants and their patrons.
geriatric, closet-homo Republican establishment
ReplyDeleteRight on.
GOP = Gay Old Pedophiles
There's no conspiracy. There's just a limit to Ron Paul's appeal. A minority of GOP primary voters -- I'd guess about 10% nationally -- agree with Paul on enough issues to vote for him. Others think he has a point on some issues, but don't like him on others.
ReplyDeleteThe Romney hate here is completely misplaced though. Romney is tougher on immigration than Paul (see Numbers USA), or any of the remaining candidates. If that's your top issue, then you're just being petulant in pissing on Romney.
If you don't think there are material differences between Obama's positions and Romney's, you haven't been paying attention.
Dennis, to answer your question: the media. It will have its effect over time. Slowly, the American people will get the message that Paul be crazy, yo. Or evil. Or ugly. Or stupid. Or sweaty. Something. Everything.
ReplyDeleteThe average person trusts the media. Even the average person who distrusts the media, trusts the media. It's not a conscious thing. It's a sanity-saving device. The unconscious mind desperately wants to believe in a warm and fuzzy universe. A warm and fuzzy universe would not give us a hostile media that hates our guts and wants us dead or enslaved.
There's no conspiracy. There's just a limit to Ron Paul's appeal. A minority of GOP primary voters -- I'd guess about 10% nationally -- agree with Paul on enough issues to vote for him. Others think he has a point on some issues, but don't like him on others.
ReplyDeleteNonsense. The media could make Paul president if they wanted him.
The media has more to do with choosing presidents than the voters do.
The logic among white nationalists who support Paul is he would at least curtail the civil rights/welfare gravy train that enables the rent-seeking by immigrants and their patrons.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same logic as that of Christian Reconstructionists who support Ron Paul:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html
"“The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners.”
“Ron Paul has long been a favorite politician of Christian Reconstructionists….“The people who I know who are big Ron Paul guys are old school Reconstructionists,” says Paul supporter Brian D. Nolder, the pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Pella, Iowa.
It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.”
“Paul has been able to create one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists’ preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North’s words, “cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”)”
Bachmann was a creature of AIPAC. The only reason for Bachmann's run was to neutralize reduce Ron Paul's impact in Iowa. From day one, everything about Bachmann's campaign as been custom designed for that purpose and no other. AIPAC would never in a million years support a candidate that had a chance in hell of actually implementing immigration restriction. They fashioned Bachmann into an Iowa-only lightning-rod. The reason Bachmann was easily the best on immigration is that AIPAC knows more about the US body politic than we do about ourselves.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, but I can't go repeating something like that without, you know, a shred of proof. Thoroughgoing plausibility won't cut it.
A state (aka the people who make up a state) does have the right to right to pass a law regulating any and all birth control devices and measures.
Yes. All powers not delegated to the federal gov't remain with the States (which is obvious from how such documents work, but rammed home with whichever Amendment it is - I forget ATM). That means all powers.
The feds don't have the power in question, the States do.
Finally, I will offer you a challenge. Given your preference for trolling on alt-right blogs, why don't you ever post at Vox Day's site?
Rotgut seems to choose his battlegrounds carefully. Too much freedom of expression, or too hostile a crowd, and he's gone. His best fit is places like SBPDL and Amren, though I don't know if I've ever seen his handle at Amren, or his schtick. Not that I read Amren much any more.
I guess that is why you never post there.
Yeah you just described Rotgut's Kryptonite and you're wondering why he doesn't go to the mother lode.
Frankly, I am undecided whether it would be better to have Obama re-elected, continuing to create revulsion that will work against him and his ilk in the future, than a "wet" Republican like Romney. There's no denying that four more years of the Failed Messiah will be dangerous, but it will boost resistance in a way that no RINO president can.
I used to be on the fence too, but I think Obama needs to go. First, we haven't had a one-termer since Bush I and having the first "black" president be a one-termer would be a good message to send. Piss on his legacy. Second, judicial appointments. Third, Romney is more likely to get slapped down on immigration amnesty than Bush II was (twice, IIRC). Fourth, God only knows what that mulatto will get up to in his second term.
I think it's very probable that Obama will be re-elected over (probably) Romney
I don't. I think he's going down, unless the media pulls a very impressive rabbit from the hat. Sure, I'm contradicting what I said earlier (sorta - Romney and Obama seem to be shaping up as the media's Tweedledee and Tweedledum), but Obama's margin has eroded. It wasn't that big to begin with.
These old idiots are muttering about the dangers of online porn and too much beer and video games and how young men need to "man up" and marry their bitchy, entitled daughters and go die for Israel.
Lol. Yes, I have no respect for the older generations in this country, Boomers on back. They screwed the pooch royally, and they all preen like they're God's gift. They don't even have the dignity to hide in shame and suck up their "welfare" in silence. I'll be glad when they're all dead.
There is a logic to "the worse, the better", but that logic has nothing to do with changing the GOP.
There's definitely a logic to "worse is better," but not on judicial appointments or demographics. We need to hold the line, and reverse direction, on these two things as much as possible.
Even the average person who distrusts the media, trusts the media.
ReplyDeleteThis can't be said enough. The media typically present only one side of an issue, only one view, and for anyone who doesn't have the urge to seek out alternative views it's the only one they'll be exposed to. So even when people know the media are lying, they'll believe the ideas the media give them because there are no other ideas competing for intellectual space.
If Ron Paul won the Republican nomination (he won't unless some exogenous event accelerates America's descent into unfree banana republic in the next several months) his anti-establishment ideas would have to be disseminated every day 24/7 by the very mouthpiece of the establishment, the mainstream media. Such a prospect should be so exciting, so appealing to anyone with truly conservative sentiments, that I'm convinced any self-styled "conservative" in opposition has ulterior, tribal qualms or has been sadly duped by those with such qualms (hint: those with such qualms have strong persuasive power and even stronger means to broadcast that power and lobby/threaten for it). Were Paul the nominee, taboo questions would of necessity become freely discussed and contemplated, not by relatively fringe groups on the internet, but by anyone who follows the soap opera Presidential race. Questions such as:"Who really benefits from the quickly approaching war in Iran" and "Who really benefitted from the Iraq war, from Muslim anger at drones flying over Pakistan and killing civilians regularly, etc.," and "Who really benefits from American military presence in 150+ nations funded by money-printing and borrowing at interest from China?" and "Who really benefits from the "War on Terror" and other Federal power-increasing and -centralizing forces? (Government has doubled in size in the last ten years alone.) and "Who really benefits from all our foreign aid and humaitarian projects like AIDS-prevention in Africa?" and "Who really benefits from the Fed's 100 year experiment in currency debasement?" and "Who really benefits from bank bailouts, from the shadow banking world of derivatives and "structured financial vehicles" the meltdown of which is now in danger of causing a world historical catastrophe? Who benefits from the transformation of America from an industrial powerhouse to a service economy ruled by a value-subtracting financial sector of Wall Street vampires, who have infilitrated every major government department, as well as golbal government the IMF, BIS, etc." and etc etc
ReplyDelete"But wait, NumbersUSA gives Romney gets a C+ and Paul a D!"
Romney is tougher on immigration than Paul (see Numbers USA)
ReplyDeleteNumbersUSA's rationale for giving Paul an F was really weak. Paul's actual actions in his Congressional career easily make him the best candidate. I don't know why #USA has it in for him, but their grades aren't trustworthy.
@1/05/2012 10:35 AM: ...Christian Reconstructionists who support Ron Paul
ReplyDeleteLol! I'm not even a Paul supporter, and I've been rolling on the floor laughing at the papier-mâché monsters being trotted out to scare people off Paul in the last few weeks. People who think Paul's curtailing the welfare state would have a salutary effect and be a good start are objectively pro-theocrat!
Ah yes, a Paul candidacy will unleash the mighty tyrannic forces of the....Christian Reconstructionists! I dunno, anonymous. I'm trying to figure out of whom I shouldst be living in more dread - the munificently bankrolled and powerfully influential dark forces of the Christian Boa-constrictionists, or the comparably mighty, opinion-manufacturing, dissent-crushing crack legions of the Stormfronters.
If you're anything like me, you're getting sick and tired of these overweening, Congress-bribing, legislation-buying groups corrupting the political landscape. I'm particularly incensed about their taking taxpayer money for their own ideological and racist agendas.
Uh huh. Perhaps I'm the only one to notice this, but nobody's actually being extorted to fund any of these marginalistas whose members might have piped up to support Paul. Nor have I noticed any politician seeking any endorsement from these nefarious power-brokers. But it's funny, ain't it, how nobody's scandalized at every other candidate groveling like snakes and whoring like crazy to garner the endorsements of actually powerful, tax-extorting, anti-liberty and racist groups like La Raza.
Ricardo: Yeah, Ricky, we haven't followed Mitt's career at all, and are just being "petulant" in not lining up yet again to dutifully support whatever pre-selected suit our betters have decided will best serve their, er, our interests. ("But, but, but, he's, um, business friendly, yeah that's it, and and he said he doesn't like illegal immigration, and and and he's not owned by the unions like Obummer so...so that's all right then. Rah rah rah sis boom bah!)
ReplyDeleteMind you, I will party like it's 1899 if Obama gets the boot. Then the next day I will be sad because of the new dirtbag in the Oval Office, a melancholy exacerbated by the almighty hangover I will probably have acquired merrily seeing Barry off. I haven't quite connected the dots but I'm sure there's a conspiracy against my liver in there somewhere.
Severn: There is a logic to "the worse, the better", but that logic has nothing to do with changing the GOP.
ReplyDeleteI for one just want the GOP to FOAD.
NumbersUSA's rationale for giving Paul an F was really weak.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how you can claim that. You can see the grades NumbersUSA awarded, and the reasons for those grades, here. They give Paul credit for his good positions and ding him for his bad ones. (You can see additional information by mousing over the individual boxes)
Paul is on record as supporting open immigration into the US. That's consistent with his libertarian philosophy. He opposes E-Verify and the punishing of businesses found hiring illegals for the same reason. There is nothing in the least bit mysterious about how he received the grade he did. He's pretty terrible on the immigration question.
People who think Paul's curtailing the welfare state would have a salutary effect and be a good start are objectively pro-theocrat!
ReplyDeleteA President Paul would have no power to "cut the welfare state" or do most of the other things his supporters imagine he would do. If you want the welfare state to be cut, you need to spend more time thinking about Congressional races and less time fixating on the POTUS.
Romney is more likely to get slapped down on immigration amnesty than Bush II was (twice, IIRC)
ReplyDeletePlus, I can't imagine Romney pushing an amnesty in the first place. Nothing in his record suggests that he has the deep emotional attachment to the issue which Bush had, or which McCain developed.
In fairness to McCain, he has seemed to learn his lesson from pandering shamelessly to Hispanics and being rejected by them. If a person as dumb as he is can learn this lesson then maybe there is some hope for the rest of the GOP.
Paul is on record as supporting open immigration into the US. That's consistent with his libertarian philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWhere does Paul say he is for open immigration? His campaign site actually lists "immigration" as an issue, which is more than Romney or Santorum. Newt does cover immigration, but I'd trust him about as far as I could throw him.
Let's say you are a foreign observer of US politics. You saw the upheaval in 2009 created by the healthcare debate over whether the state should play a central role. You saw the democrats lose big at the polls in 2010 over this issue just 2 years after their historic election night when they looked unstoppable.
ReplyDeleteNow, in 2012, you see that the presidential race is shaping up to be Obama versus Romney, both of whom created government run health care systems, the former at the federal level and the latter at the state.
Question: Would this foreign observer now believe that the healthcare debate has been settled and that the proponents of government run healthcare have won? If not, what on Earth would lead him to believe this issue is still open for debate given the two presumptive standard bearers for this fall?
Severn: A President Paul would have no power to "cut the welfare state" or do most of the other things his supporters imagine he would do.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I have no idea what that has to do with my remark.
Thank you anon 2:20 for linking to Paul's immigration position, which I wasn't familiar with (but am not at all surprised by):
ReplyDelete"If elected President, Ron Paul will:
* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.
* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.
* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.
As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake."
Other than eliminating the last bullet point (good luck opposing that), what else can be done?
Sure, Paul has never said that the racial character of the nation is important (though he and his son have said "taboo" things that perhaps even Buchanan hasn't dared, such as that the now-sanctified civil rights legislation of the 1960's was an unconstitutional mistake). So, yeah, if a candidate spoke strongly about that, I'd support him over Paul. On the other hand, I believe those trying to portray Paul as another Bush or McCain on immigration are doing so ignorantly or underhandedly. Whatever weakness Paul has displayed on the immigration question stems from his principled position against the Federal usurpation of power from states (and civil liberties from individuals). I'll take a principled guy over a political whore any day; those with purely expedient, leftist, and/or elitist approaches towards immigration (i.e. every other candidate) will change as the political need arises.
I'm not sure how you can claim that. You can see the grades NumbersUSA awarded, and the reasons for those grades, here. They give Paul credit for his good positions and ding him for his bad ones. (You can see additional information by mousing over the individual boxes)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tutorial, but I know how to use their website.
NumbersUSA gives grades on specific sub-issues, whereas the candidates only speak in the blandest generalities (Mitt and Santorum don't even talk about immigration on their campain sites, for instance. Unlike Paul.). That gives Numbers a lot of leeeway to hand out whatever grade they feel like. They use that leeway to penalize Paul against the other candidates.
There is nothing in the least bit mysterious about how he received the grade he did.
Paul is the only one who's in favor of, or even talks about, repealing birthright citizenship. He has the best record, yet he gets the worst grade. Is that mysterious? Maybe not. Wrong? Yes.
On Wednesday Romney said, "I think people, whether they're Hispanic or non-Hispanic, I think people agree that we'll enforce immigration laws in part to secure legal immigration as an important pathway to this country," Romney said. "I like legal immigration, I want more legal immigration. But illegal immigration has to be stopped to make legal immigration possible."
ReplyDeleteI like legal immigration, I want more legal immigration
So 1 million+ per annum is insufficient? How many more, sir, would you like? Between the willing Hans, Hindus, Bantus, and Aztecs we could almost certainly increase this by a factor of 10. But hell, Mitt likes legal immigration and wants more of it. Why not 20 million per year? It would certainly help the housing recovery. And by the way, what is this word “nation” of which you speak?
But illegal immigration has to be stopped to make legal immigration possible.
And this is, of course, the pernicious political prestidigitation of the plutocratic pederasts. Mitt won’t end the practice of illegal immigration, he’ll end the very concept. As the technocratic twit he is, he sees a problem: illegal immigration; and a base solution: make all immigration legal. Problem solved and next on the agenda?
I have long thought that the illegal immigration thorn in the side of our race replacers would be dealt with from the conceptual rather than the practical side. Maybe Mitt will be their Huckleberry or maybe he won’t, but at some point the entire world from our perspective will be comprised of only two kinds of people: those who want to be Americans and are, and those who don’t want to be Americans and aren’t.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter myself but if it comes down to a choice between Romney and Obama, I am voting for Romney. If you think that Obama has been an anti-white radical in his first term, imagine how much worse he would be if he got a second.
ReplyDelete"As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process"
ReplyDeleteThats a deal breaker right there.
"(good luck opposing that)"
You mean like Pat Buchanan, Numbers USA, FAIR, CIS, VDARE, and Tom Tancredo (and even David Frum for goodness sakes!)?
Whiskey:
ReplyDeleteRon Paul has brought home the pork big time (he's got zero integrity for a Libertarian, given his earmarks and such). He's accomplished nothing in Congress, he's out for quick bucks and notoriety, wanting Sarah Palin / Mike Huckabee style money and payoffs. Books, appearance fees, and so on. His views on military force, spending, Iran, and so on appeal to DEMOCRATS (apparently a substantial amount of his voters in Iowa were either Dems or non-affiliated). Not Republicans.
I'm going to venture a guess. You're Jewish, right?
Every time I feel my support for Rep. Paul slipping (mainly because of the raft immigration sub-issues, some of which he is okay on), I read something written by Whiskey. Then I become a die-harder for a while.
ReplyDelete"Jake Tapper: Romney ‘probably’ the ‘elitist left-wing’ media favorite"
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycaller.com/2012/01/05/jake-tapper-romney-probably-the-elitist-left-wing-media-favorite/
"On Thursday’s broadcast of “Imus in the Morning,” simulcasted on the Fox Business Network, ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper called in from the campaign trail in New Hampshire and offered his thoughts on the current race for the GOP presidential nomination.
One of the questions asked by host Don Imus was who Tapper thought the “elitist left-wing media” wanted to be the nominee.
“Probably Romney,” Tapper replied."
...
"But as far as the “left-wing elitist media,” Tapper said Romney represented “the least horrible.”
“But in any case on the show last night, they seemed — the consensus seemed to be that Mitt Romney was the least horrible among — that was this liberal show, ‘The Young Turks Show.’”"
I'll take a principled guy over a political whore any day
ReplyDeleteObama is a principled guy, Bush was a principled guy. "Principled guys" are absurdly over-rated by many voters. Being a "principled guy" seems to be short hand for "screw the people who voted for me, I'm going to do what I want. Because I have principles!"
Thanks for the tutorial, but I know how to use their website
ReplyDeleteThen I'm at a loss as to your inability to understand it.
That gives Numbers a lot of leeeway to hand out whatever grade they feel like. They use that leeway to penalize Paul against the other candidates.
Great Scott! The evil Jews have gotten to NumbersUSA!
I have nothing against Paul personally, but his fans tend towards the irrationally paranoid. The whole world, even organizations like NumbersUSA, is all a gigantic conspiracy aimed at sticking it to Ron Paul? They're afraid that the megabucks of Jewish money they currently receive would dry up if they gave Paul a "D"? You're just not making any sense.
in 2012, you see that the presidential race is shaping up to be Obama versus Romney, both of whom created government run health care systems, the former at the federal level and the latter at the state.
ReplyDeleteYou're not a very knowledgeable foreign observer if you're under the impression that the executive in the American political system, at either the state or federal level, "create[s] government run health care systems".
That is the role of the legislative body. Congress passed Obamacare, and only Congress can repeal it. (The courts can void it as unconstitutional, and may still do so)
Obama is a principled guy, Bush was a principled guy.
ReplyDeleteIf you remember Bush's campaign in 2000, he campaigned as a non-interventionist, humble foreign policy type.
Guess there will be no invitation to stay at Buckingham Palace:
ReplyDelete"Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack... A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part4_main/?page=1
Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws. The first choice--sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home--isn't going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney.
Nah, just kidding, That was Ron Paul. You can read more of his positions here. They don't exactly suck, but they do have the limitations which NumbersUSA noticed.
"It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous."
I'm afraid those of you who see Paul as representing a Tancredo style "Americans first" approach are missing what he's saying.
If you remember Bush's campaign in 2000, he campaigned as a non-interventionist, humble foreign policy type.
ReplyDeleteHe campaigned on making America closer to our good friends south of the border.
"Latinos come to the US to seek the same dreams that have inspired millions of others: they want a better life for their children. Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande. Latinos enrich our country with faith in God, a strong ethic of work, community & responsibility. We can all learn from the strength, solidarity, & values of Latinos. Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is the sign of a successful nation. New Americans are to be welcomed as neighbors and not to be feared as strangers."
George W Bush, June 2000.
Ron Paul’s removal of economic rent from the public sector is right up there with sealing the borders since that economic rent is currently subsidizing fertility of immigrants.
ReplyDeleteThats a deal breaker right there.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure that's the deal breaker for you, or is it just a good excuse for the true deal breaker?
(and even David Frum for goodness sakes!)
ah - thought so. (But thanks for the list, I'm going to write in VDARE for President if Buchanan and Tancredo drop out)
Obama is a principled guy
You're right, I didn't like the way I wrote that, wasn't quite what i meant.
The whole world, even organizations like NumbersUSA, is all a gigantic conspiracy aimed at sticking it to Ron Paul?
I don't know, but I just checked the site for the first time, and they do seem to be hard on him; I tend to agree with jmperry here. Also his anti-immigration campaign platform is quite strong (especially when combined with his extreme anti-welfare-statism) and that should count for something given his integrity (i.e. we can take his campaign platforms at face value, which is really what I was getting at above. Even Reagan found it expedient to give illegals amnesty, which was a catastrophic blunder in hindsight)
He campaigned on making America closer to our good friends south of the border.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about foreign policy.
He campaigned on a paleocon-ish, non-interventionist foreign policy in 2000. The neocons supported McCain against Bush in 2000.
Great Scott! The evil Jews have gotten to NumbersUSA!
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against Paul personally, but his fans tend towards the irrationally paranoid. The whole world, even organizations like NumbersUSA, is all a gigantic conspiracy aimed at sticking it to Ron Paul? They're afraid that the megabucks of Jewish money they currently receive would dry up if they gave Paul a "D"? You're just not making any sense.
For Christ's sake, Severn, I didn't say anything about Jews. I'm not sure how you saw that in my comment-- do you fancy yourself a mind-reader?-- but as you would say, I'm at a loss as to your inability to understand it.
And Severn, have you heard of projection? Your stock response to any disagreement is to hysterically accuse the other person of hysteria (or paranoia, or conspiracies, whatever). I can't tell if you're too witless to make a real argument or just trolling, but either way you really need to calm down.
What are the arguments for supporting Romney?
ReplyDelete"Ricardo said...
ReplyDeleteRomney is tougher on immigration than Paul (see Numbers USA), or any of the remaining candidates."
I doubt it. What can Numbers USA's numbers actually mean? Romney has never held national office, at which level such matters have traditionally been (and for the most part still are) decided. I don't believe that he made immigration an issue when he was governor of Massachusetts, or did the slightest thing about it at that time. There is no substantive basis - such as a voting record - for assessing Romney's views on immigration. All we have are his public statements, worth just about nothing.
Porter - that was excellent and exactly correct. Romney is a technocratic twit offered up by the same establishment that has very deliberately put young white men in competition with the globe for wages and decent housing, and pitted them in head to head economic competition with their own prospective mates. And to top it off, he's a member of a stupid,whacko religious sect that's hurriedly stuffed all the nutjob writings from its founder in the vault and has rolled out a slick campaign to market itself as a unitarian-universalist book club.
ReplyDeleteBut let Ron Paul come along and actually galvanize the white ethnic group interest and all these respectable conservatives and Scots-Irish come out of the woodwork to wag their fingers. Kook. Wimp.
What, pray tell, is Romney? Like you say, he'll expand immigration quotas, put DHS into overdrive processing them, and declare illegal immigration "solved."
I agree with Rick Darby - it's worth it to have Paul out there campaigning, saying reasonable things (and being treated like a leper for saying reasonable things) just so as to spread the message.
ReplyDeleteThat said, we need more than a candidate to pin our hopes on every four years, even if that candidate should win. No President (not yet anyway) is a dictator, and a President Paul, or someone following in his footstpes certainly wouldn't be. In order to effect the change we seek, a Congress is required as well. We need a new party - a party that wants to be a white nationalist party, even if it would not explicity acknowledge that fact. That's a much taller order than even electing a President.
"Rohan Swee said...
ReplyDeleteAh yes, a Paul candidacy will unleash the mighty tyrannic forces of the....Christian Reconstructionists!"
Quite so. Those pittiless theocrats are right behind SPECTRE, the neo-nazi fourth-reich-in-waiting, and atomic-weapons-testing-spawned giant ants as real, plausible threats to the Nation.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Would this foreign observer now believe that the healthcare debate has been settled and that the proponents of government run healthcare have won? If not, what on Earth would lead him to believe this issue is still open for debate given the two presumptive standard bearers for this fall?"
Good point.
Whiskey just said at Stuff Black People Don't Like, "Paul says Martin Luther King is his hero and wants Open Borders. So I'd guess he's a big NO for most here at SBDL."
ReplyDeletePlease whiskey post that stuff at Vox Day
As others have shown, Paul actually discusses immigration on his campaign site. His proposals, although not as tough as I'd like, are more than Romney and any democrat advocate.
Ha. If all else fails they'll blatantly assassinate him, provoking the "right wing terrorists" into a retaliation and thereby giving the green light for what Bill Ayers has been planning since the 1960s
ReplyDeleteAverage Joe said...
ReplyDeleteI'm a Ron Paul supporter myself but if it comes down to a choice between Romney and Obama, I am voting for Romney. If you think that Obama has been an anti-white radical in his first term, imagine how much worse he would be if he got a second.
Once the banksters and the media eliminate all but Romney they will go back to supporting Obama.
The country will continue on towards the precipice and nothing is likely to change it. Too many special interests and too much complexity.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/01/04/does-the-future-belong-to-ron-paul/
ReplyDelete" More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation. They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part ofthe traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party."
Within two or three election cycles when the last of the "Greatest Generation" Golden Corral-worshipping windbags die off and the state is in deeper debt, the demographics will be even more in Rand Paul's favor. His radically anti-state agenda along with his zealous band of followers is a harbinger-- not of the total destruction of the Federal government-- but of the breakup of the publicly-sanctioned bipartisan duopoly into competing private camps of patrons and their vanguards seeking to wrest control of the managerial state.
ReplyDelete"What are the arguments for supporting Romney?"
ReplyDelete- Smarter than the incumbent or any of the GOP contenders.
- Successful experience managing large organizations and turning around failing ones (SLC Olympics, large companies via Bain Capital). No other GOP candidate has Romney's management experience or his turnaround experience. America needs a turnaround.
- Willing to take on China to defend American industry and jobs.
- Is a Mormon straight arrow: married to the same woman for 40+ years, doesn't drink, cheat, etc. No drama to distract him from the job.
- Thanks to successful government, not-for-profit, and business executive experience, knows many competent individuals he can nominate and appoint to key positions. Won't have to rely mostly on retreads like Obama.
- Best candidate on immigration.
- Is numerate.
In other words there aren't any aside from some vague notions of "competence" and completely unsubstantiated claims about future immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteA guy like Romney is promoted by the GOP leadership not because he has assured them he will be rock solid on immigration, but because they know he will be rock solid on what's really important, namely, he will be friendly to the banksters, the military-industrial complex, and meddle as necessary to support Israel. Immigration doesn't even rank, and it probably would hurt if he was going to actually do something about it. For whoever is going to lead the USA must allow enough illegals through to ensure members the Chamber of Commerce have enough coolie labor for their hotels, restaurants and slaughterhouses.
ReplyDeleteSo if you are going to oppose Ron Paul, fine, this is a free country. But don't patronize us by arguing that Romney, Newt or any other establishment candidate would do better than Paul on this issue. Establishment republicans have been pushing amnesty for years. It was the grass roots that rose up to oppose them. Does anyone really think Romney differs on this from the guy who just endorsed him?
NumbersUSA's rationale for giving Paul an F was really weak.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. They don't give Paul any points for opposing amnesties, despite his consistent opposition to them, and their reasons for not doing so aren't that convincing.
He also doesn't get any points for supporting local enforcement of immigration restriction even though he would give local authorities more power and has expressed support for local enforcement of immigration laws. Their reason for not doing so is simply because Paul has said that "being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous".
There's really no substance to the claim that Romney is "best on immigration".
ReplyDeleteThe claim seems to be entirely based on cherry-picking non-binding statements made by the candidates.
"Romney Reiterates Stance Against DREAM Act - Calls for More Legal Immigration"
ReplyDeleteThursday, January 5, 2012, 11:17 AM EST
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/january-5-2012/romney-reiterates-stance-against-dream-act-calls-more-legal-immigration.html
"But on Wednesday, Romney also spoke in favor of increasing legal immigration into the United States, which is already at over 1 million legal immigrants per year.
"I think people, whether they're Hispanic or non-Hispanic, I think people agree that we'll enforce immigration laws in part to secure legal immigration as an important pathway to this country," Romney said. "I like legal immigration, I want more legal immigration. But illegal immigration has to be stopped to make legal immigration possible.""
Note that Paul voted against the DREAM Act, so it's not like Romney is taking a unique stand.
Over at VDARE, "Washington Watcher" does a good job pointing out Romney's solid record on immigration as governor of Massachusets.
ReplyDeleteIf the Numbers USA grading is sloppy, perhaps some impartial person/group should develop a better grading system.
Porter @ 3:40 gets it right.
ReplyDeleteMost of Paul's official positions on immigration are okay, but the last one -- "As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers" -- nullifies the others.
As he would have it, legality trumps real-world consequences. There's no practical difference between him and Bush Numero Dos or Buraq: in effect he believes the same old riffs about anation of immigrants, jobs Americans won't do, diversity is our strength, as long as they're legal, ad infinitum.
To put it differently, he's for mass immigration, just wants to "streamline" the process so it's more efficient. And wrongly identifies the problem as illegality rather than numbers and cultures of immigrants.
As I noted, some aspects of Paul's libertarian ideology are attractive and his keeping them in front of the public is welcome. But demography is destiny. He is not my friend on that score.
Ricardo, I'm sorry, but are you trying to sound like an RNC or U.S. Chamber of Commerce shill? Where to start? In the interests of brevity, I'll assume anybody who cares could actually look into the likes of Bain Capital and the rest of the leveraged-buyout artistes of recent years, and decide for themselves how much they've contributed to a productive economy (as opposed to being highly successful "smart and numerate" bust-out operators). Funny how the press releases all seem to mention the same couple of things - Staples, Olympics, nothing else to see here, move along.
ReplyDeleteChina? Trade-saber-rattling at China is prolefeed. Romney doesn't need to "get tough on China". Romney needs to get tough on the "American" companies that buy the legislation that has put us in our current destructive trade position with China. (As if China or anybody else could export a widget to us if "we" - and that includes consumers - didn't let them.) And that Romney will never do, unless and until the holy-rolling, more-Ricardian-than-thou, Polly Purebread "anti-protectionists" suddenly decide they themselves need some protection from China's properly self-interested trade moves. Few things in this world disgust me more than seeing "free traders" suddenly discover their inner jingo when they find themselves on the short end of the "free" trade stick that they were happy to use for their own profit, no matter how much the national interest was damaged. Unless it's temporarily reformed "free traders" who are b.s.'ing Rust Belt rubes on the campaign trail.
Better on immigration? Yeah, in that "I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you" sort of way. As the anonymous above has ably covered, Romney wants more more more legal immigration. And anybody who believes he'll do anything to thwart the Cheap Labor lobby is hitting the moonshine too hard.
Svigor,
ReplyDelete"Nonsense. The media could make Paul president if they wanted him.
The media has more to do with choosing presidents than the voters do."
If that were true, you know who would be leading the race for the GOP nomination now? Jon Huntsman. If you read the elite media, he is by far their favorite Republican. And yet Huntsman can't get out of low single digits nationally.
He'll do OK (3rd or 4th, maybe?) in New Hampshire, because he has a home there, but he isn't going anywhere.
Rohan Swee,
ReplyDeleteClaiming that all Bain Capital did was bust-out companies is prole-feed, to use your expression. Sure, some failing companies got broken up, but others got turned around and grew successfully (Staples, for example).
As for trade, American companies (and foreign companies selling in the US market) maximize profits within the legal framework (including tax, regulations, tariffs, etc.) set by the US government. If the status quo results in too many jobs going overseas, it's up to government to change that legal framework. Romney understands that, and would work to change it accordingly. I'm not angry at Apple building all its stuff in China; I'm angry at the US for making that the most profitable route.
By the way, I recommend everyone here read Ann Coulter's column from last week, "Only one candidate is right on the two most important issues [Obamacare and immigration]". Here's Coulter on immigration and E-Verify:
ReplyDelete"Any candidate who opposes E-Verify is not serious about illegal immigration. If anything, E-Verify ought to be made mandatory to get a job, to get welfare and to vote.
Kowtowing to business (while pretending to kowtow to Hispanics), Paul, Perry and Santorum oppose E-Verify. As a senator, Rick Santorum voted against even the voluntary use of E-Verify.
[snip]
Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify."
If you're going to be serious about immigration, you can't avoid race in the long run. It's no use forcing out 10 million Hispanic illegals if you're going to pass laws that'll allow them to come back. The only difference would be that they wouldn't be undercutting the wages of American workers so much when they're legal. On the other hand, being better paid, they'd start having more children. I wish there was a candidate who openly stated that the fewer non-White immigrants, legal or illegal, the better. I can't imagine any of the present crop saying that.
ReplyDeleteIf that were true, you know who would be leading the race for the GOP nomination now? Jon Huntsman. If you read the elite media, he is by far their favorite Republican.
ReplyDeleteYou can't always get what you want. But the "elite media" will get what they need.
By the way, I recommend everyone here read Ann Coulter's column
Ann Coulter thinks Bush was one of the great Presidents in American history. Enough said. And if you really believe Paul is trying to "sneak through amnesty," then ... wait but you don't really believe that, do you Ricardo? Come on now.
I think Romney's a good guy, a natural alpha male who should've run in 2008 over the vile McCain ( ... waiting for someone to say Romney's not an alpha male because he's only been with one woman). Problem is, "America" (by which I mean traditional America) needs pest control now, not some competent, fairly conservative manager. Will Romney kick the money changers out of the temple and kill the lepers (that happened in the bible, right?)? Ok, Paul can't by himself either, but at least he will bring attention to the parasitized that they are parasitized. I understand that that's the last thing some people want.
If that were true, you know who would be leading the race for the GOP nomination now? Jon Huntsman. If you read the elite media, he is by far their favorite Republican. And yet Huntsman can't get out of low single digits nationally.
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear at all that he's the elite media favorite over Romney or Gingrich.
And you're either stupid or deliberately disingenuous. Saying that the media has more to do with choosing presidents than voters, and that Paul could be made president by the media, is not the same thing as saying that the media could make absolutely "anybody" president.
"Saying that the media has more to do with choosing presidents than voters, and that Paul could be made president by the media, is not the same thing as saying that the media could make absolutely "anybody" president."
ReplyDeleteIf the media were so inclined, and had the ability to make Paul president, as you and Svigor suggest, it would be easier for them to make Huntsman president. He's closer to the mainstream on most issues, is a former governor (when's the last time a congressman was elected president), is better looking, younger, etc.
And by the way, Anonymous: there was nothing stupid or disingenuous about my comment about Huntsman. It was a legitimate point, one you didn't manage to refute.
ReplyDeleteTry being a little more civil.
The idea that how good a candidate will be on the immigration question is determined by their position on "E-Verify" is simply not true.
ReplyDeleteIt's entirely possible that Romney could end up being the worst on immigration with E-Verify.
It's sort of like saying that how good someone is on terrorism is determined by whether or not they support the TSA.
And as for this:
ReplyDelete"It's not clear at all that he's the elite media favorite over Romney or Gingrich."
It's clear if you've been paying attention. Here are just a handful of examples. You can Google more if you want:
Jonathan Avlon, CNN: "GOP, it's time to give Huntsman another look"
Concord Monitor: "Huntsman is the best choice for GOP" (and before you dismiss this little paper as not being part of the media elite, consider this sentence which encapsulates how its editors are on the same wavelength as major media:
"Among candidates too often seen as hostile to science, Huntsman is a believer in its power to explain phenomena like climate change."
The Financial Times: "Republican Realist"
The Boston Globe: "For vision and national unity, Huntsman for GOP nominee"
Those are just a few positive examples. Now think of negative ones. Who has gotten more negative press from the media -- Romney and Gingrich, or Huntsman? Romney gets hit on his wealth, but I haven't seen as much about Huntsman's wealth, for example.
If the media were so inclined, and had the ability to make Paul president, as you and Svigor suggest, it would be easier for them to make Huntsman president. He's closer to the mainstream on most issues, is a former governor (when's the last time a congressman was elected president), is better looking, younger, etc.
ReplyDeleteUm no. You're simply asserting these things.
What makes you think "the mainstream" is even very popular?
Paul has clearly demonstrated that he has a sizable and loyal base of support to work from, and he's very popular on certain issues that reaches across party lines to independents and the left.
I don't think Huntsman is better looking. He looks like a dweeb. And being better looking and younger are not good in and of themselves. They matter in popular politics if they translate into greater charisma. Charisma is determined by various things. Youth and looks don't necessarily mean more charisma. Paul has demonstrated greater charisma by his greater following and popular support, especially from young people.
there was nothing stupid or disingenuous about my comment about Huntsman.
I maintain that it was stupid or deliberately disingenuous.
You either didn't understand Svigor's comment or you were trying to misrepresent it. Saying that the media has more to do with choosing presidents than voters, and that Paul could be made president by the media, is not the same thing as saying that the media could make absolutely "anybody" president.
It's clear if you've been paying attention. Here are just a handful of examples. You can Google more if you want:
ReplyDeleteAgain, I reiterate that you're either stupid or disingenuous.
The question of elite media favoritism isn't determined by a naive ratio of positive to negative coverage. A candidate that gets one positive article and then never gets covered ever again is not necessarily the elite media favorite even though he has a 1.0 ratio on this score that is greater than any of the other more heavily covered candidates. And the amount of overall coverage the media feels compelled to devote to a particular candidate can determine how positively (or negatively) they cover him regardless of how much they actually favor (or disfavor) him. A candidate might get a positive story even though he's disfavored because he's expected to go away and not be very relevant.
Here is the bottom line on Romney: he is a conservative, not a reactionary. He is a diplomat when we need warriors.
ReplyDeleteI have no illusions about Ron Paul. He would be isolated and politically naive, and his implementation would fall far short of his ideals. But he is the ONLY step in the right direction.
I just find it very illuminating how the only candidate who galvanizes young, white, male voters and pisses off the media, the Jews, Wall Street and the libertines is also despised equally if not more so by the conservatives.
Really, the perfect Republican nominee would be Lindsey Graham. He's a passive-aggressive faggot who hates white men and should have broad appeal.
"Romney Supports National ID, Government Pre-Approval of Working"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/romney-supports-national-id-government-pre-approval-of-working/
"Speaking at a town hall meeting at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney backed a national ID system and government pre-approval of all new hires in the country. It’s a stunning amount of power he wants the federal government to have."
"He’s describing an expanded E-Verify system, and the biometric national identity system that has been proposed for it. That system would not only be used for controlling employment, of course. Like the Social Security number did when it caught mission creep, the national ID Romney talks about would come to be used to control access to housing, to financial services and credit, gun ownership, health care and medicine, the list goes on and on.
It’s technically possible to have a biometric card that solely indicates one’s qualification to work under federal law, but as I wrote in my paper, “Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration,” there is almost no chance that the government would limit itself this way. E-Verify requires a national identity system, and Mitt Romney wants that national identity system."
"Again, I reiterate that you're either stupid or disingenuous."
ReplyDeleteYou and Svigor allege that the media has the capability to make Ron Paul president, and he's trailing in national polls because they don't like him.
I've argued that the elite media likes Huntsman more, and Huntsman's low numbers demonstrate the limits of their ability to elevate a candidate. You simply haven't come close to refuting that. Instead, you've tossed off irrelevancies and ad hominems.
Perhaps Svigor will make a better effort when he shows up.
Anti-Gnostic:
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of questions for you.
1) Do you think Ron Paul could win the general election?
2) If not, what benefit do you see in nominating him? Do you think he would rail against "the media, the Jews, Wall Street and the libertines" in his three televised debates with Obama? If so, would that be worth another 4 years of Obama, during which O would have no compunction against signing an amnesty bill for illegals?
I think he would have won in 2008 and Obama would be back in Chicago as a part-time law professor. Now, he is too old. I think he is laying the groundwork for his son, but the Left AND the conservatives will condemn Rand Paul as a kook and a bigot for his remarks on the Civil Rights Act once his turn comes. Thank you, conservatives.
ReplyDeleteI am admittedly being something of a gadfly as at this point I don't think it matters who the Republicans nominate. Romney will not advance the ethnic group interests of white Americans, who will continue to lose ground under Romney's enthusiastic leadership IF he wins.
Again, I find it more interesting to note who breaks out the pepper spray when Paul's name gets mentioned. There is an odd confluence of conservative and liberal opinion that convinces me the Republican establishment is not just useless but hostile.
I have thought more about your questions. My answers are 1) maybe and 2) by establishing beyond doubt that the Republican party is the staunch political ally of the US's market-dominant ethnic majority.
ReplyDeleteLimited, constitutional republican government is the political philosophy of the majority of white, Christian, heterosexual Americans. Romney is a technocrat and member of a gnostic, screwball sect. He won't help, and all indications are that he will harm, albeit at a slower pace.
I just find it very illuminating how the only candidate who galvanizes young, white, male voters and pisses off the media, the Jews, Wall Street and the libertines is also despised equally if not more so by the conservatives.
ReplyDeleteYes, seeing as "America" has been commandeered by parasites (from the top and the bottom) who feed off decent middle class whites and oppress white males, it is indeed illuminating the extent to which Ron Paul gets under the skin of those who are essentially satisfied with this status quo (I mean aside from his jewish antagonists, whose strategic antagonism is predictable and understandable). Paul is a great litmus test, and perhaps because of his few imperfections, since they draw those who can't resist seizing upon them into betraying themselves as enemies of any serious change in the prevailing structure of modern power.
1) Do you think Ron Paul could win the general election?
2) If not, what benefit do you see in nominating him? Do you think he would rail against "the media, the Jews, Wall Street and the libertines"
If he were the nominee he'd have a shot, wouldn't he? And sure he would rail against the interests of those entities you list. Have you ever heard him? At worst, he would make discussion of such things acceptable, since the news cycle would be forced to cover them non-stop. Even if he lost, when the financial shit hits the fan the citizenry would be better educated about who is to blame. Ron Paul represents the "tea party" movement at its best.
You and Svigor allege that the media has the capability to make Ron Paul president, and he's trailing in national polls because they don't like him.
ReplyDeleteNo. All I've said is that saying that the media has more to do with choosing presidents than voters, and that Paul could be made president by the media, is not the same thing as saying that the media could make absolutely "anybody" president.
I've argued that the elite media likes Huntsman more, and Huntsman's low numbers demonstrate the limits of their ability to elevate a candidate.
You asserted that Huntsman was the elite media candidate. I showed that that's unjustified.
I've suggested multiple times now that there are limits to the media's ability to elevate a candidate. I'll repeat it again since you apparently haven't read or understood it: Saying that the media has more to do with choosing presidents than voters, and that Paul could be made president by the media, is not the same thing as saying that the media could make absolutely "anybody" president.
Re 1), I doubt Paul could win given the current economic numbers. Romney might, but for Paul to win, things would have to be worse (maybe unemployment at 9.5% instead of 8.5%).
ReplyDeleteAs for 2), There's already a dawning realization that Republicans are the white party (or, more specifically, the default party of the white working class). It's not just Steve Sailer saying that anymore. See David Brooks's column on Santorum early this week. There was also a guy on Charlie Rose this week (from Politico, I think) making the same point. It's becoming mainstream.
So, to underline that in a losing Paul candidacy, while seeing the country's white majority shrink further and faster with an Obama amnesty, I don't see the logic in it.
Huntsman's low numbers demonstrate the limits of their ability to elevate a candidate
ReplyDeleteThat "demonstrates" nothing. Your ignoring how much the media prefers Huntsman to the other Republicrats (not that much). If it were Huntsman vs. David Duke, and David Duke won, that would at least be worth noting. From 30 thousand feet (or more like 30 feet) this entire Republican primary (and probably this entire election) is between Paul and everybody else. Paul's message resonates with people so it's conceivable that if he got the kind of coverage Obama got in 2008, he'd win. That was Svigor's point.
Then, you're ignoring how much grassroots support Huntsman starts with. The media can't make Mumia abu Jamal or someone even worse like Anderson Cooper the Republican nominee, even though they'd want to. Now, if Huntsman could get 20% of the Iowa caucus but fail to be elevated by the media into the candidacy, that might contribute to demonstrating something. Etc. But, I'm of course just repeating what anonymous has said several times now.
Is there any good evidence that Romney will:
ReplyDelete1) Stop or reverse the white majority's demographic decline
2) Set the stage for the devolution of powers to the States so the States can set up their own border controls
So, to underline that in a losing Paul candidacy, while seeing the country's white majority shrink further and faster with an Obama amnesty, I don't see the logic in it.
ReplyDeleteThe gamble you are making is that Romney will do a single thing to reverse the trend. I think, based on his garbled, ambiguous comments to date that he will expand legal immigration and declare the problem 'solved,' but maybe I'll be very pleasantly surprised. The one thing I am confident he will NOT do is attempt to return the federal government to its constitutional limits and the the ratchet will continue to tick one way.
That being the case, it would sure be nice if white Americans devoted the same numbers and the same energy to secessionist causes that they currently do to college football and electoral politics.
As the anonymous above has ably covered, Romney wants more more more legal immigration.
ReplyDeleteAs does Paul, based on his own words. Paul is not the next Tancredo, and wishing he was will not make it so.
It’s technically possible to have a biometric card that solely indicates one’s qualification to work under federal law, but as I wrote in my paper, “Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration,” there is almost no chance that the government would limit itself this way. E-Verify requires a national identity system, and Mitt Romney wants that national identity system."
ReplyDeleteGreat! We can use it to screen voters as well. There are a number of areas where knowing a persons legal status is essential.
E-Verify alone doesn't really tell us what would happen to immigration. There are other variables involved.
ReplyDeleteIt's conceivable that E-Verify could increase immigrant employment (and thus immigrant fertility) and accelerate immigration, especially with greater support for more legal immigration. It could reduce the risk for corporations to hire immigrants, since the liability would be placed in the hands of the government bureaucracy running E-Verify.
I just find it very illuminating how the only candidate who galvanizes young, white, male voters and pisses off the media, the Jews, Wall Street and the libertines is also despised equally if not more so by the conservatives.
ReplyDeleteI guess I just don't find "Jews hate him!" to be an adequately persuasive argument. I don't care how Jews feel about him (or any other candidate).
This country does need a populist uprising, but a libertarian is an unlikely leader of such a movement.
It's conceivable that E-Verify could increase immigrant employment (and thus immigrant fertility) and accelerate immigration, especially with greater support for more legal immigration. It could reduce the risk for corporations to hire immigrants, since the liability would be placed in the hands of the government bureaucracy running E-Verify.
ReplyDeleteSupport immigration restriction by opposing E-Verify!
E-Verify alone doesn't really tell us what would happen to immigration.
You can say that about all sorts of measures. Building a 100 foot high wall along the border would not necessarily do anything about immigration either. But like E-Verify, a fence on the border is a necessary (if not on its own sufficient) part of any practical immigration control program.
There are a number of areas where knowing a persons legal status is essential.
ReplyDeleteIt's also essential if you want to force various persons to interact based on some stamped approval decided by central authorities and prevent lower levels and localities from practicing discrimination.
Severn: As does Paul, based on his own words. Paul is not the next Tancredo, and wishing he was will not make it so.
ReplyDeleteSevern, I don't know why you keep addressing my remarks as if were a Paul supporter. I think the points I'm addressing are pretty clear from the context, and I'm bemused as to how you make the leap from my arguing that Romney ain't all that on immigration, to inferring that I think Paul is Tancredo's soul mate. If you're addressing somebody else, I think the standard procedure is to quote them, not some other random commenter taken out of context.
It's also essential if you want to force various persons to interact based on some stamped approval decided by central authorities and prevent lower levels and localities from practicing discrimination.
ReplyDeleteGovernment can, and does, do that already, without any "national ID". Where have you been for the last fifty years?
Support immigration restriction by opposing E-Verify!
ReplyDeleteIf it was likely that E-Verify would increase immigration, then you would support immigration restriction by opposing it.
If it's not that clear what its effect would be, then you might oppose or be wary of it for other reasons.
You can say that about all sorts of measures. Building a 100 foot high wall along the border would not necessarily do anything about immigration either. But like E-Verify, a fence on the border is a necessary (if not on its own sufficient) part of any practical immigration control program.
The analogy doesn't apply. There's no real chance of a wall facilitating or increasing immigration.
Government can, and does, do that already, without any "national ID".
ReplyDeleteRight. And a national ID may cement and further that objective. So if you want movement towards greater power for lower levels and localities to be able to discriminate, then a national ID doesn't necessarily support that goal and may even be antithetical to it.
Severn, I don't know why you keep addressing my remarks as if were a Paul supporter.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you took the words you cited to mean "I think you're a Paul supporter". You mentioned that Romney has said that he favors more legal immigration. I pointed out that Paul has said the same thing. We're just sharing information about the candidates here.
I think the points I'm addressing are pretty clear from the context
I accept the point which you are making. But I don't think that you are putting that point in context, which is why I mentioned Paul's position on legal immigration. There is no candidate who holds the view we would prefer on the immigration issue. As you pointed out, Romney does not. As I pointed out, Paul does not. None of the others do either.
Right. And a national ID may cement and further that objective.
ReplyDeleteWhat does that even mean? Cement and further that objective, how, specifically?
if you want movement towards greater power for lower levels and localities to be able to discriminate, then a national ID doesn't necessarily support that goal and may even be antithetical to it.
Thee can be no "localities" without ID. This is true for the "locality" know as the USA. It is equally true for the locality known as Texas and the locality known as Peoria. If any damn person (or ten million damn people) in the world who feel like it can move to your "locality" whenever the whim takes them, you don't have a locality.
Obviously having ID does not, by itself, guarantee that you will have a locality. Thank you for making that banal point. But you're having a lot of trouble with the whole concept of "necessary but not sufficient". The fact that something (E-Verify, or ID, or sliced bread) does not solve all of our problems all on its own does not mean that the something is useless or counter-productive. It means the something needs to be complemented by other somethings.
Ricardo: Claiming that all Bain Capital did was bust-out companies is prole-feed, to use your expression. Sure, some failing companies got broken up, but others got turned around and grew successfully (Staples, for example).
ReplyDeleteYeah, and some sound companies got ruined for fun and profit. Yes, I mentioned Staples, Ricardo. It's always the example given. It's pretty much the one and only talking-point example trotted out. Why are you "informing" me of a data point I mentioned myself? As I said, the curious can examine the history themselves.
As for trade, American companies (and foreign companies selling in the US market) maximize profits within the legal framework (including tax, regulations, tariffs, etc.) set by the US government. If the status quo results in too many jobs going overseas, it's up to government to change that legal framework.
The current legal framework for trade wasn't constructed in isolation from "companies", Ricardo. We have the trade framework we have because the "globalists and multinationals" (if you'll forgive my shorthand use of a populo-proly term) want it that way. Who do you think dictates trade policy? Hint: very little of it is the product of corrupt senescent unions trying to maintain their feather beds (though they do do enough mischief elsewhere). In case you haven't noticed, Washington is corrupt. "Tax, regulation, and tariffs" are set by campaign contributors, not the national interest.
Romney understands that, and would work to change it accordingly.
I'm not at all persuaded that Romney or anyone else in the Republican party much cares about what our current trade policies are doing to this country. It's wrecking the country, but the people who matter are doing just fine, really, better than fine in the new world order, and neither Romney nor anyone of his ilk will change it until it stops benefiting them. (And it can go on benefiting them for a long, long time.) That's when the jingoism starts getting rolled out in earnest. Right now China-bashing is just the equivalent of the "re-negotiating NAFTA" blarney that was being shoveled in the last election.
I'm not angry at Apple building all its stuff in China;...
Neither am I. Apple is a private company, in no meaningful way "American", and Apple does what Apple's gotta do. But nice sleight of hand there, pretending I'm attacking corporations when I was explicitly calling out a weak government devoid of any concept of national interest.
But I may be being unfair here. Perhaps you're not being deliberately dishonest, you're just in robo-bullet point mode. Hint: trade deficits are not all the fault of Democratic administrations.
I'm angry at the US for making that the most profitable route.
Though you're sublimely uninterested in how that "most profitable route" came to be what it is. As if companies who spend millions lobbying on trade policy are incapable of buying themselves a tax break or regulatory laxness (which they do all the time, by the way).
A "national ID" is likely to involve applying uniform law across the entire country.
ReplyDeleteIf any damn person (or ten million damn people) has some card stamped with approval from a central authority that prohibits you from discriminating him in your locality in any way, then you don't have a locality.
Rowan Swee:
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to play tennis on all of your points right now, but I do want to address this about trade briefly:
"The current legal framework for trade wasn't constructed in isolation from "companies", Ricardo. We have the trade framework we have because the "globalists and multinationals" (if you'll forgive my shorthand use of a populo-proly term) want it that way. Who do you think dictates trade policy? Hint: very little of it is the product of corrupt senescent unions trying to maintain their feather beds (though they do do enough mischief elsewhere). In case you haven't noticed, Washington is corrupt. "Tax, regulation, and tariffs" are set by campaign contributors, not the national interest."
That's about 180 degrees backwards. See the penultimate paragraph of Ian Fletcher's post here for an explanation of why the US switched from protectionism to free trade after World War II: "America was founded as a protectionist nation".
A "national ID" is likely to involve applying uniform law across the entire country.
ReplyDeleteA uniform law regarding ID at any rate. Of course we already have a whole lot of laws which apply uniformly across the country, so I continue to be perplexed by your belief that laws which apply "across the entire country" are some sort of radical departure in the direction of dictatorship.
If any damn person (or ten million damn people) has some card stamped with approval from a central authority that prohibits you from discriminating him in your locality in any way, then you don't have a locality.
I hate to have to inject a little reality into your fantasy world, but it is currently the case that you may not discriminate against that person or persons. So your belief that you will lose that ability to discriminate in the event of a national ID law is just one more peculiar thing about you.
Do you even live in America? You seem utterly clueless about how things work here.
I'm not at all persuaded that Romney or anyone else in the Republican party much cares about what our current trade policies are doing to this country. It's wrecking the country, but the people who matter are doing just fine, really, better than fine in the new world order, and neither Romney nor anyone of his ilk will change it until it stops benefiting them.
ReplyDeleteThat's certainly an interesting and worthwhile topic to discuss. Still, your focus on Romney seems odd. Who do you suggest we support who will take a different tack on our current trade policies?
I continue to be perplexed by your belief that laws which apply "across the entire country" are some sort of radical departure in the direction of dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteI never said or suggested that they're a radical departure.
That's the entire problem. It's not a radical departure from the direction of dictatorship.
I hate to have to inject a little reality into your fantasy world, but it is currently the case that you may not discriminate against that person or persons. So your belief that you will lose that ability to discriminate in the event of a national ID law is just one more peculiar thing about you.
I never said that currently we can discriminate and that we will lose this ability with a national ID.
That's the problem. We can't discriminate and the national ID doesn't do anything to advance the goal of greater power to discriminate at lower and local levels.
Ron Paul's useful idiots on the left
ReplyDeleteProgressives who make common cause with Paul on US foreign policy ignore his stunningly reactionary views on everything else
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
"He opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He wants to restrict birthright citizenship, denying the children of immigrants legal status in the United States if they are born here, voted to force doctors and hospitals to report undocumented immigrants who seek medical treatment, and sponsored bills to declare English the official language of the United States and restrict government communications to English. And that's just for starters."
Why anti-Semitism is moving toward the mainstream
ReplyDeleteBy ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
01/05/2012 22:53
Brian Leiter and Ron Paul are guilty of helping to legitimate the oldest of bigotries. Shame on them!
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=252440
"For the first time since the end of World War II, classic anti-Semitic tropes...are becoming acceptable and legitimate subjects for academic and political discussion.
To understand why these absurd and reprehensible views, once reserved for the racist fringes of academia and politics, are moving closer to the mainstream, consider the attitudes of two men, one an academic, the other a politician, toward those who express or endorse such bigotry. The academic is Prof. Brian Leiter. The politician is Ron Paul."
"He opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He wants to restrict birthright citizenship, denying the children of immigrants legal status in the United States if they are born here, voted to force doctors and hospitals to report undocumented immigrants who seek medical treatment, and sponsored bills to declare English the official language of the United States and restrict government communications to English. And that's just for starters."
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should interview Severn and learn that Paul is actually an open border supporter's best dream.
Romney has absolutely no integrity:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vS9SF3vc-A
I never said that currently we can discriminate and that we will lose this ability with a national ID.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. We can't discriminate and the national ID doesn't do anything to advance the goal of greater power to discriminate at lower and local levels
So how is that an argument against national ID? The fact that A, which is intended to help accomplish B, does nothing to help accomplish C, is not a argument against A.
The discussion here was focused on immigration. We cannot control immigration without knowing who is and is not an American. Hence the need for some sort of national ID. The discussion of your "power to discriminate" is is a completely different one.
That's the entire problem. It's not a radical departure from the direction of dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteYou are a very stupid person.
Ricardo: That's about 180 degrees backwards. See the penultimate paragraph of Ian Fletcher's post here for an explanation of why the US switched from protectionism to free trade after World War II: "America was founded as a protectionist nation".
ReplyDeleteIt would only be "180 degrees backward" if it contradicted or was inconsistent with our feckless use of "free" trade as a Cold War policy. It doesn't and isn't. That Cold War strategy dictated our initial abandonment of protectionism doesn't explain why we continue to pursue - and as a matter of fact have accelerated - clearly damaging trade policies, 60 years on, when China looms larger as a geostrategic player. (We don't source military hardware components from China, of all places, because of outdated anti-protectionist Cold War thinking.)
Here's Fletcher's paragraph (whom I've read, by the way):
"What happened to America's long protectionist tradition? In the end, America only seriously turned away from protectionism as a Cold War gambit to prop up capitalist economies abroad and tie them to the U.S. Geopolitics trumped domestic economics."
Fletcher's point in his article is not that our current trade woes are all due to leftover Cold War policy. He's arguing against the current received wisdom (aka widely-believed myth) that the United States (or any nation, for that matter) grew to wealth and power through free-trading.
Which isn't what we're disputing here, which is whether Romney can, or wants to, change the existing policies. Did I miss some stump speech where Romney argues specifically about changing outdated Cold War thinking about trade?
Yes, after the war we decided that because of our overwhelming economic predominance we could absorb the predicted (supposedly limited and manageable) damage from free trade for geostrategic purposes. You really think that now our ports stay open to floods of Chinese goods just because State is still playing Cold War, that NAFTA and the passel of other FTAs get pushed through because nobody listens to K Street? Look, we not only have to make it profitable for companies to produce here, we have to make it unprofitable for them to seek LCD working and environmental conditions, which means removing the expectation that they can freely import back into the U.S. no matter what. Some candidate making vague noises about making taxes and regulations more "business friendly" (which may be a great thing or may be a despicable thing) tells me exactly nothing about whether he'll get "tough on trade" in the national interest.
This exchange started with your claim that Romney would be "willing to take on China to defend American industry and jobs". I countered that China was not the problem, a corrupted government was - and corruptees need corrupters. To the best I can make out, you appear to be arguing against my point by repeating a good bit of my own position back to me. At any rate, you seem to have abandoned the "Romney is better because he'll get tough on China" bit in favor of a host of vaguely related bullet points.
Severn: That's certainly an interesting and worthwhile topic to discuss. Still, your focus on Romney seems odd. Who do you suggest we support who will take a different tack on our current trade policies?
ReplyDeleteI don't really see anyone on the horizon. The few who might have a wee clue about the problem unfortunately tend to be "progressives", so their ideas are also attached to a lot of pernicious economic (and everything else) thinking, from the other direction. I'd be delighted to be introduced to any up-and-comers, or old fixtures I've overlooked, who show signs of sense on this issue. Being a pessimistic old fart, though, I don't see the issue being addressed in any prudent and timely way. (Probably past that point, anyway.) You can't be an economic nationalist if you don't believe in the existence of a nation, which I don't think anybody in Washington does. Things will go on 'til they can't go on.
(And I'm just hatin' on Romney because he appears to be the anointed right now. I don't really hate the slimey mofo any more than I hate any of the other slimey mofos.)
"It would only be "180 degrees backward" if it contradicted or was inconsistent with our feckless use of "free" trade as a Cold War policy."
ReplyDeleteThat is 180 degrees backward, and a heroic attempt by you at changing the point you made in your previous comment. Your argument was that trade policy was corruptly set by campaign donors, not the national interest. But it wasn't campaign donors that changed trade policy post-WWII: it was public servants who believed it was in our national interest to support our new allies and fend off communism. And in the immediate aftermath of World War II, they were right.
Now, it's clearly no longer in the national interest to maintain those policies, but it's not corrupt campaign donors keeping them in place. It's inertia and ignorance of that history, as Fletcher notes.