Ron Paul’s Last Stand

A post-mortem on Dr. No’s final presidential bid

(Page 4 of 4)

But other Paulites sound like they are in electoral politics for the long game. Marianne Stebbins ran the very successful Minnesota operation for Paul, which nabbed 80 percent of the state delegation. She told a crowd of nearly 10,000 at a Paul rally held in Tampa the day before the RNC that “we were successful because we came together five years ago, networked, organized, began sharing the message of liberty with neighbors and co-workers.…We were setting up ham radio clubs. We were buying and splitting sides of steer and bison. Drinking raw milk off our friends’ farms. We were helping each other with our businesses.…We trade with each other. We work to be physically and mentally fit so that we are self-sufficient. We self-employ. Maybe we homeschool, but we teach our children to be self-sufficient and to live free.”

For people like Stebbins, though still into electoral politics, the politics part seems almost an afterthought. It is this strand of the rEVOLution’s DNA that promises to impact American culture and lives above and beyond any single campaign for office.

Paul himself is cagey about his specific activities in 2013 and beyond. He reclaimed his title as honorary chairman of the Campaign for Liberty, and activists from Young Americans for Liberty are confident he’ll hit the campus speaking trail again. “The movement for liberty would be a failure if it was linked to one party,” Paul says. “A true revolution has to be pervasive and infiltrate everyone.”

So Ron Paul ran for president and won. Not the presidency, but over two million highly energetic people who—when given the chance—voted for peace, freedom, and sound money. The results of the general election seemed to indicate that a GOP without its Paul faction is at best a losing party. His faction is not going away, and with Romney’s drubbing and a country that doesn’t seem as if it is going to escape its fiscal tailspin any time soon, they bid fair to be even more influential in 2016. That isn’t the same as leading the free world, but it’s more than Paul bargained for when he first entered into politics.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    If Romney was about to be inaugurated, nothing would be different. Every cycle the GOP hammers libertarians and conservatives to shut up and get behind the country clubber du jour. Meh Romney, Old maniac McCain, idiot George W,...

    2016 will see another GOP old money douchebag emerge and once again he'll be sold as our only chance to save the country.

  • SugarFree||

    How dare you notice a pattern. How dare you.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    I googled "libertarian candidate wins election" and guess how many hits came up? ZERO. Losers are as losers do.

  • some guy||

    D-

    Way too obvious. No serious thought put into post. Hardly anything to respond to. Too bland to be worth of ire.

    Try harder next time. I recommend working in something about spoiling elections for your preferred TEAM.

  • ||

    You're too generous. I'd give it an... what's below an F?

  • NoVAHockey||

    My dad tell a story about how he received a "K" on an exam once, with a note "Is English spoken in your home?"

  • ||

    Now that's some funny shit.

  • Mongo||

    Try googling "suppression of third parties", skeezix.

  • np||

    I loathe to reply to the troll, but for the record, New Hampshire has had some success with local candidates (free staters)

  • fish||

    2016 will see another GOP old money douchebag emerge and once again he'll be sold as our only chance to save the country.

    ....and lose spectacularly again! Time for the GOP to GOAway.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    You should vote on that. Oh you did and lost. Libertarians are such ignorant losers they don't know they lost.

  • fish||

    Hi Mary! How are the cheekbones?

  • some guy||

    D-

    See comment at 12:40 above...

  • ||

    Republocrats are such ignorant winners they don't know they lost. Oppression at the whims of the majority = wealth destruction, a loss for everybody.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    But those 2.1 million (let alone Gary Johnson’s 1.2 million) fall short of the 4 million gap between Obama and Romney.

    Ron Paul didn't need to close that 4 million gap. He just needed 500,000 to 1 million votes in the swing states.

  • ||

    The GOP leadership is absolutely tone deaf to the "libertarian"/Paulite faction and will fight tooth-and-nail to keep those elements out of the power structure. See: Amash, Justin.

  • iggy||

    What's really hilarious is that the GOP leadership looks at us with suspicion, but if you ever ask a progressive what a libertarian is they'll give you some bizarre spiel about how 'Libertarians are just like those GODDAMN NEOCONS!'

    I honestly think progs operate on some sort of one drop rule, where if you agree with Republicans on anything you are not to be trusted.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    That is because they took a vote and you lost. Only libertarians are stupid enough to think voting is tyranny. Yeah, if you are a loser libertarian.

  • Mongo||

    I happen to be a winner libertarian, fuckface.

  • ||

    Mary, Mary quite contrary.
    How does your medicine cabinet grow?

  • KalkiDas||

    They play that in the Teletubbies intro!

  • Brandon||

    Each of your personalities is less interesting than the last, Mary.

  • Sam Grove||

    That is because they took a vote and you lost. Only libertarians are stupid enough to think voting is tyranny. Yeah, if you are a loser libertarian.

    Really boooring.

  • Liberty||

    The GOP will loose, and will continue to loose, until it realizes that it is the party of white Americans. It is the party of the historical American nation. But it doesn't represent white Americans. White Americans have been clear about what they want. They oppose immigration and they oppose war. They don't want to send their sons to die for Israel or Saudi Arabia, or for "democracy" for Arabs. But the Neo-Cons who run the GOP represent the forces of war, cheap labor, and "diversity." They would rather die than admit that they are the party of white Americans, and so they will die. The greatest swing vote is not Hispanics, it's not Cubans or Asians or Jews. It's white Americans. What do you think would be easier for the GOP, improving their Hispanic share from 27% to 57% or improving their white share from 59% to 63%?

  • wareagle||

    and the Dem Party represents whom, statist Americans of all colors? Just stop and begin by stopping to divide Americans into neat little bundles by skin color, gender, ethnicity, and all those other markers that are part and parcel of Dem politics.

    The Repubs lost credibility by talking about small govt, then doing their level best to avoid putting that principle into practice. Dems are at least honest about their desire to tax and regulate everything and everyone. And given that Obama has either kept or expanded every Bush-era terror program, perhaps those whites ought to reconsider their actions.

  • ||

    It's Mary, dude.

  • Liberty||

    "neat little bundles by skin color, gender, ethnicity, and all those other markers that are part and parcel of Dem politics."
    It seems to work out well for the Dems. Race and "ethnicity" are very important. RINOs and Cosmotarians keep telling us we need to "appeal to Hispanics." But how can we. They support socialism just as much as they support open borders. Don't even get me started on
    African Americans. Jews and Asians are only marginally more likely to support libertarianism. Our politics are not about the issues, they are about what America you represent. The Dems do well among these groups, as well as among Yankee north easterners, by appealing to their natural revulsion toward historical America. If the Republican party wants to win, they have to act more like the Democrats. They have to mobilize white Americans, they need to oppose immigration and war. My message is that the GOP should appeal to white Americans, not that white Americans should vote for the GOP. If they choose too, they should do so on their own terms, like the Ron Paul delegates.

  • ||

    *barf*

  • Liberty||

    Typicall.

  • robc||

    loose

    Ban yourself from the internet for at least 30 days for that.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    You get a 10 minute ban for mis-threading!

  • NoVAHockey||

    10-minute misconduct. hockey is back.

  • Ted S.||

    The abomination that Gary Bettman turned the NHL into is back, but real hockey never went away.

  • Suellington||

    I would like to learn more about this trend of Republicans getting loose. Could you talk about this please?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    The GOP will never win until they offer more free shit to the public. And learn to manage their image better.

    Touting cuts and responsibility is just dumb - doubly so if you never actually intended to do it in the first place. By 2016 they'll control neither the White house nor either of the houses of congress. Luckily, no 'third' party will rise, so they'll be propped up by savvy Democrats who know that they need someone to demonize.

  • wareagle||

    yup, seems the real lesson of the '12 vote is that the tipping point has been reached. Things like limited govt, individual liberty, and lower taxes are relics of a bygone era. The old JFK pronouncement of "ask not..." has been turned on its ass; today, it's all about demanding, not even asking, that your country do for you.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Well they're freaking 'entitled' to it, it makes sense to demand it.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, but when the doors blow off and there's no more money for free shit we'll have to swing back to the right, at least a little bit.

    It won't be by choice, but this is so unsustainable that cuts will be forced on us eventually.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Apparently, you are unaware that we have a $15,000,000,000,000 economy that is three times larger than China's. As a conservative, I find this level of ignorance a sad statement about conservatives. Conservative is not latin for stupid bigot.

  • Mongo||

    I betcha you're three times as large as a Chinaman.

    What - is the Weekly Standard site down or somethin'?...

  • Libertarius||

    Kennedy was a fascist, and his quote is hideous.

    President Libertarius said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, nor what you can do for your country; ask what you can do for yourself, because no one else can live your life for you, so stop being a collectivist pussy."

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Another libertarian dickhead, imagine that. Lost any elections lately? ALL OF THEM. Losers are as losers do.

  • fish||

    Off your meds again Mary? In a pinch...try vodka.

  • ||

    In a pinch...try vodka cyanide.

    FIFY

  • Cytotoxic||

    I can't agree fully with the above 2 comments. If they were right the 2010 GOP wave should not have happened. And we should not have a clutch of serious reform-minded GOP governors with legislative control in charge of states like WI. We should not have RTW in Michigan. Free shit wouldn't work for the GOP because the Dems own that angle with sincerity.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Small pockets of variance will still ultimately trend to the norm. Especially when the propagators of the variance in those areas have national aspirations, which they always will.

    The 2010 'wave' was still a 'wave' towards MORE unsupportable statism. It's over.

  • Mike M.||

    If they were right the 2010 GOP wave should not have happened.

    Let's be completely honest: a huge percentage of the morons who make up Obama's cult following voting base are too lazy to ever turn out for midterm elections, and midterm elections are almost always a reaction against the sitting president. They aren't nearly as representative of the sheeple as the major elections.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Dittoheads have little credibility when it comes to accusing others of not thinking for themselves. It is right in the name -- dittohead. You do understand what ditto means?

    Let's be honest? There is nothing honest about libertarians. There isn't any such thing as a free market because they require honesty and transparency to work and neither exist or have ever existed. Republicans win some elections one time and everyone else is in a cult. Repeating the delusion doesn't change it.

  • cavalier973||

    "Dittos" became a R. Limbaugh show catchphrase early in his radio show's history as a way to cut down on time spent praising Rush. As in: "Ditto what that previous caller just said, now to get to my question..." as opposed to every call beginning with: "Wow, I've been waiting for a show like this my whole life--finally there's a radio show host who talks sense--you are saying the things I wish I could--etc."

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Yes, exactly. They all think the same thing. Usually based on ignorance and a lack of facts.

  • cavalier973||

    *There isn't any such thing as a free market because they require honesty and transparency to work and neither exist or have ever existed.*

    Does democracy require no honesty or transparency to work, then? What about socialism, or any sort of centrally-planned economy? They work perfectly well in an atmosphere of deceit and obfuscation, right?

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Anything that requires voting requires honesty and transparency. Political markets are markets too? You are aware of this? Do I think our government should be more transparent and honest? Yes, of course. Do I think that citizens should be held to a similar standard? Yes, of course. But when a New York newspaper legally published the names of gun owners, transparency and honesty were suddenly bad?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Anything that requires voting requires honesty and transparency.

    Third-world nations would be shocked to hear this.

  • trshmnstr||

    Anything that requires voting requires honesty and transparency.

    Is that you, Hugo Chavez?

    Do I think that citizens should be held to a similar standard? Yes, of course.

    citizens should be forced to be transparent and honest? I guess 50 years of "what happens in my bedroom is not your business" is out the door.

    But when a New York newspaper legally published the names of gun owners, transparency and honesty were suddenly bad?

    yes, because government transparency is the same as violating the privacy of citizens.

  • Brandon||

    Just fucking stop. Romney didn't lose because he wasn't democrat-lite enough, he lost because HE COULDN'T DIFFERENTIATE HIMSELF FROM THE FAILURE-IN-CHIEF.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Like roads to nowhere? Like endless wars you didn't pay for? Like tax cuts you didn't pay for? Like Dick Cheney's, "Deficits don't matter." As a conservative, I have come to realize that you don't ever get the Republican dumbass you want, you always get the stupid bigot you have.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Like roads to nowhere? Like endless wars you didn't pay for? Like tax cuts you didn't pay for? Like Dick Cheney's, "Deficits don't matter." As a conservative, I have come to realize that you don't ever get the Republican dumbass you want, you always get the stupid bigot you have.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    You do realize that Mission Accomplished kumbya Republicans have little credibility when they were doling out free shit to Iraq. Bush lost a $13 million dollar pallet of cash. Maybe you morons are easy to vilify because you are villains. You idiots think Robin Hoods is the bad guy. Talk about deluded.

  • some guy||

    Who are you arguing against here? Republicans? Libertarians? All of the above?

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Who am I arguing against?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Are you that schozphrenic you don't even know?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You idiots think Robin Hoods is the bad guy.

    Nonsense. Robin Hood was redistributing the taxes that the government was enforcing and giving it back to the people in a manner outside of the government's control. He also maintained his own private property in Sherwood Forest without the government taking anything from him in recompense. Robin Hood was English folklore's greatest libertarian.

  • ||

    Unfortunately the Disneyfied version isn't about sticking it to the taxman but "robbing the rich to give to the poor". And that right there is your basic problem with society.

  • LifeStrategies||

    The Robin Hood story I got growing up in England was that Robin Hood robbed the rich to give to the poor.

    And robbery is about as far opposite to libertarianism as you can get...

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    It is ironic that the person who claims to love markets then ignores them when they clearly state their disapproval of deluded policies not grounded in facts or evidence.

  • ||

    *barf*

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Spoken like a truely dimwitted and lazy libertarian.

  • fish||

    Hurl!

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    And now we know why libertarians don't win elections - ever. Losers are as losers do.

  • Brandon||

    This is fascinating. Did you vote for Obama, Mary? Do you feel like *you* won something because of that? Do you realize that not a single person voted for you, and not one of the people you voted for gives half a shit about you? Are you just a winner because of some idiotic identity politics? Or are you still just completely alone and delusional?

  • ||

    Mary is the type of person who takes personal credit and personal pride when athletes wearing a uniform with colors she likes defeat their competitors in a sporting match. "Hurr durr! "We" won! Suck it losers!"

  • Libertarius||

    So you are going long on the rationality of the unwashed welfare masses who voted for obozo? Don't lecture us about "facts or evidence", bub; your lamestream media talking points don't fly here.

    Here's the real facts and evidence for the adults in the room: the dollar is going down and it's going to take the fed gov with it. Ron Paul was right.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Wow, you sound like all the other deluded idiots on this site.

    The dollar is going down? Really, then why aren't interest rates going up? Yeah, try sticking to reality. And even if it did, oh like it did in the 1980s which boosted manufacturing because it makes exports cheaper? Like what China does to its currency? Wow, you aren't just dumb, you are dumber than dumb.

  • iggy||

    Uh...when did manufacturing rebound in the 1980s? I knew that was a lie the instant I heard it, so I quickly checked and found several academic papers which say that that's a lie.

    http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1990/09/art1exc.htm

    Excerpt: "Many manufacturing and mining industries never recovered from the two recessions" and manufacturing "remained at about 23 percent of GNP over the decade while FACTORY JOBS DROPPED FROM 23 PERCENT to 18 PERCENT OF EMPLOYMENT."

    Emphasis mine. So manufacturing as a percentage of GNP was unchanged and the percentage of people working in manufacturing dropped substantially. Boy, that sure is a boost to manufacturing! And we're the liars?

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Sorry, but I didn't say "rebound" so maybe your are a liar, maybe just incompetent. It is hard to tell the two apart. You can't even quote someone properly? I said boosted and didn't use any statistics because people didn't vote for Reagan based on facts and evidence, thank you for providing the evidence for that. I guess we now know why libertarians don't win elections. So, Mercedez, BMW, Toyota and Honda didn't build plants in the US in the 80s? Google news says otherwise.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Sorry, but I didn't say "rebound" so maybe your are a liar

    And even if it did, oh like it did in the 1980s which boosted manufacturing because it makes exports cheaper?
  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    The dollar is going down? Really, then why aren't interest rates going up?


    Your lack of familiarity with economics is astounding. The reason interest rates are not going up is because the Federal Reserve keeps printing money (and yes, it is a metaphor for what the Fed does) in order to maintain the supply above demand. This IS inflation, and the Fed will not be able to do it forever, so interest rates WILL go up.

    And the dollar IS going down. So are other currencies that are being inflated in kind, but that does NOT mean the supply of dollars is shrinking or constant.

    And even if it did, oh like it did in the 1980s which boosted manufacturing because it makes exports cheaper?


    Again, your lack of familiarity with basic economis is appalling (albeit not surprising): Whereas debasing the currency does indeed make goods for export cheaper, it also makes other very necessary goods more expensive - like capital goods and other imports. So whatever "benefit" you may get from currency devaluation, it is more than offset by increasingly higher prices for local producers and consumers.

    For the US, the 80s did not see the high levels of inflation we're seeing today and, instead, saw an increase in IMPORTS from Japan and Hong Kong. Your contention that there was a cheaper money policy during the 80's does not jive with reality.

  • iggy||

    Pretty average troll. I give it a six.

  • ||

    Mary again....looks like she's off her meds.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Is this what constitutes intellectual discourse amongst libertarians? No wonder you people loser EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. Hilarious. Markets work? You losers still keep thinking you are winners, so markets clearly don't work.

  • Corneliusm||

    Is Mary the same creature as rather? Or am I confusing her with another troll?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah. That's the general belief.

  • fish||

    You're confusing her with most of the other trolls. She seems to have a lot of time on her hands.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    She must have gotten bored at Zerohedge quicker than I expected.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What does half the people who don't pay any taxes voting to force the half that does to buy them stuff have to do with markets?

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    They do pay taxes. Everyone pays sales and property taxes. In my state of Wisconsin, 66% of corporations pay no taxes. Maybe you should try some reality for a change.

  • iggy||

    Of course you're from Wisconsin. I was there when the real deluded fools were congregating around the state capital.

    Tell me, do the progressive drones that make up the city of Madison still smell as bad as they did when I was there?

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Yes, you are another idiot. Here is how Walker is hurting Wisconsin. Walker cut wages to public employees who spend their money in Wisconsin at local businesses, but not capital expenditures, most of which leaves the state. Schools buy computers - money leaves the state. Schools buy software - money leaves the state. Schools hire online tutors - money leaves the state. Republicans aren't just dumb, they are dumber than dumb.

  • Mike M.||

    Oh Mary, you're from Wisconsin just as much as Chony is from Oklahoma.

  • iggy||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Money leaves the state? Do you have any idea how markets work? You spend money out of state so that you get a product you want. The reason you spend it out of state is so that you get the product more cheaply than your state could produce it. Both people win! Or would you rather we return to 1730's mercantilism? Because that sounds like your preferred economic system.

    Also, when Walker took over the unemployment rate was 8.3 percent. It is now 6.7 percent. Compare that to the left wing promised land of California, a state where they're crowing that their unemployment fell below 10 percent for the first time in 5 years. And that's mostly because people left the labor force.

    TROLL HARDER!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Why are you talking to it?

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    The money that is leaving the state are tax dollars, not Walker's money. So, you mindless drivel makes little sense. You clearly don't know anything about alternatives. Most of what is bought is a service which could easily be purchased in state. For example, the local college spends $100,000 a year on Blackboard that leaves the state when they could use Moodle and hire two administrators who are Wisconsin citizens and live in state.

    Who says the unemployment rate is 6.7%? Walker? You do realize that he has his own numbers based on double-counting. He said that thousands of jobs were created before the recall and then afterwards they were all lost in one fell swoop.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    Walker cut wages to public employees who spend their money in Wisconsin at local businesses, but not capital expenditures, most of which leaves the state.


    The above doubletalk is the direct result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Educashion Dat Teeches Kidz 2 Red an Writ.

    First of all, this "buy local" is an obvious economic canard from an economics ignorant nitwit. Second, a Capital expenditure may mean you send money that may go out of the state, but also means GAINING a capital good which will produce other goods. That's the idea of spending on Capital - to produce more valuable things.

    Schools buy computers - money leaves the state. Schools buy software - money leaves the state.


    State GAINS computers, State GAINS software.

    This is just imbecilic. Your knowledge of economics does not even reach the level of bare familiarity, much less enough to even opine on the subject.

  • ||

    Dude, this dumb bitch doesn't even understand how those public employees are paid in the first place. My god but she is an annoying cunt.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    No, the state wastes my taxes on software it could have gotten for free and computers that would have had a multiplier effect in the state creating more jobs and more revenue in the end. Sorry, but it isn't your money loser, you will have to earn it like the rest of us.

    So, now you are socializing your stupidity on the government again? Will the freeloading socialism never end. Its not your parents fault you are dumb, it is the governments. It isn't a pizza restaurants fault it went out of business, it is the FDA's for wanting it to be honest. THE HORROR OF HONESTY. Liberty doesn't include the right to be a backstabbing liar. Go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Software produced in Wisconsin is free, you see.

    Jesus. You were a way better troll when you were gamboling across field and plain. Maybe you should try that again.

  • some guy||

    So in Wisconsin you pay Federal sales and property taxes on top of local and state sales and property taxes? No wonder you're so up tight...

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Yes, but we aren't Florida or Arizona. I don't have any problems paying more if it gets rid of libertarians. Small price to pay and all.

  • Liberty||

    Btu if WE leave, we take our MONEY with us.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    You mean your gold. Sorry, but I don't know any rich libertarians. And since that is gubernment money, why do you have any at all. You hate the government that backs the money you love to hate? Say whaaaaa.

  • ||

    Must be why your state's budget is so flush. Wisconsin don't need none of them thar Peter Thiel types fucking up their quality of life. Hurrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

    By the way, ossifer, am I free to gambol across state lines?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    It is ironic that the person who claims to love markets then ignores them when they clearly state their disapproval[...]


    Elections are not markets, Mary.

    [...] of[sic] deluded policies not grounded in facts or evidence


    To what policies are you alluding?

    So far the current policy of spending your way to prosperity has only brought more debt and less production, so I don't understand your contention.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Elections aren't markets? Yes they are loser. Apparently someone should tell John Stuart Mill. Then why is free speech so important Losers? Wow, you aren't just dumb, you are dumber than dumb. You can call me all the names you want, you will still be dumber than a rock. No offense to rocks for at least know to not say anything.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    Elections aren't markets? Yes they are loser.


    No, they are not, blockhead.

    Markets are build entirely on exchange between individuals. Elections are not, there's no exchange; they're not better than opinion polls.

    Apparently someone should tell John Stuart Mill.


    Somebody should tell you that John Stuart Mill did not suggest that elections are markets.

    Then why is free speech so important Losers?


    What does this have to do with the above? You're flying off a tangent here.

    You can call me all the names you want, you will still be dumber than a rock.


    This is rich coming from a person that confuses markets with elections.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Wow you are that dumb. You are confusing "markets" with economic markets. It is often a mistake of the ignorant to confuse them. Elections are competitive and have winners and losers just like markets but instead of using money you use votes. Really, you are ignorant. No kidding. Let me guess, you barely have a high school education. If Reason is where you go to get information you should know that deductive reasoning only gets you a communal delusion.

  • ||

    Uhhhh, competition != market. Also, markets have no inherent losers since they are based on voluntary exchange. No exchange would take place unless both parties were satisfied that they had gained something they valued more highly than what they gave up. You should have tried gamboling into your local community college - even the washout professors there could have at least defined a market for you.

  • some guy||

    About 40% of eligible voters chose not to vote for President. If we carry your "elections are like markets" premise forward we see that a plurality of the market did not like any of the "products" available. What does that say about the two main "products" available?

    *Note I'm not agreeing with your premise that elections are like markets. It's easy to show that they are not. I'm just pointing out that your premise, if accepted, indicts everyone in the political system.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Yes, I would agree that they are less than perfect but better than everything else. If you bring in third parties, you often end up with a candidate like Jesse Ventura who really isn't in power by consent of the majority. So, his authority is immensely diminished. If you want to bring in more candidates you would have to move to a ranking system for voting where you would put a one next to your first choice, then a two next to your second choice and so on.

  • Rothbeard||

    I assume the lack if replies is because this makes so little sense it can't even be refuted?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Pauls' (and our) problems lie not just with the GOP establishment, but with the establishment in general. Particularly when it comes to Foreign Policy. The Social Issues are more just noise and pandering particularly in a Presidential race. The Miliarty Industrial Complex is fully supported by the GOP and DNC as well as the media. In addition, the multi-national corps including those that own the media want to expand markets (both retail stores and manufacturing bases) across the globe and they want to use the US Military to make those places safe to do business and to provide continuing security. Paul's criticism of our foreign policy was what caused the greatest backlash and not just against the other smug ahole gop candidates.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And of course there is also the Federal Reserve which the Banking industry will not allow to go away.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    You are apparently unaware that before the fed there was the Bank of the US that was on again off again depending on the recession. It is pretty sad that a magazine called Reason, which was founded by lawyers, has to rely on so much ignorance for its success.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Drink!

  • cavalier973||

    Skoal!

  • pmains||

    There were two Banks of the United States, with 20 year charters. The second Bank of the United States' charter ended in 1837. That's pretty well known among Paulites and the people on this board.

    Also, fuck off.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Thank you for proving AlmightyJB wrong. Dumbass.

  • pmains||

    The Fed was created in 1913. 1837 to 1913 is a pretty large gap. Dumbass.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    How many deluded libertarians does it take to lose an election? All of them. Losers are as losers do.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    It would be great if Reason published a test on The Wealth of Nations, so we can see Ron Paul and the rest of the libertarians fail like they do at everything else.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    It would be great if Reason published a test on The Wealth of Nations, so we can see Ron Paul and the rest of the libertarians fail like they do at everything else.


    Why don't you post one and see how it goes?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

  • Mongo||

    Losers R as losers do, Ol' Mex.

  • MJBinAL||

    Maybe you missed the last few elections. Let me recap for you:

    GOP Power Broker Selected Presidential Candidates:
    Bob Dole, loser
    G.H.W. Bush, loser
    John McCain, loser
    Romney, loser

    Reluctantly Accepted by the Power Brokers running against ... Al Gore and John Kerry (the Democrat equivalents of John McCain)
    G.W Bush, winner by a hair

    See how it works? I spell loser... GOP.

    Do the GOP and Donkey party honchos cook the rules to keep power? YEP!
    Can the GOP win without the Libertarian wing? NOPE!

    So if you like the result you got, keep on doing what you have been doing.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    Keep telling yourself that and keep losing.

  • Robert||

    But G.H.W. Bush won one, too. And I wouldn't characterize McCain as the choice of power brokers! I might, however, consider him among the Reluctantly Accepted.

  • np||

    Political markets are markets too?

    No. Your political "market" is anything but a free market.

    Franz Oppenheimer gave us the maxim that all action can be categorized as either a political means or an economic means.

    In a free market, I can choose what I want and I am not forced to abide by someone else's terms if I don't like those terms AND I still retain control over my person and property. In a free market, other participants can't vote me into jail or vote to take my property.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    Walker cut wages to public employees who spend their money in Wisconsin at local businesses, but not capital expenditures, most of which leaves the state.


    The above doubletalk is the direct result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Educashion Dat Teeches Kidz 2 Red an Writ.

    First of all, this "buy local" is an obvious economic canard from an economics ignorant nitwit. Second, a Capital expenditure may mean you send money that may go out of the state, but also means GAINING a capital good which will produce other goods. That's the idea of spending on Capital - to produce more valuable things.

    Schools buy computers - money leaves the state. Schools buy software - money leaves the state.


    State GAINS computers, State GAINS software.

    This is just imbecilic. Your knowledge of economics does not even reach the level of bare familiarity, much less enough to even opine on the subject.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Mary Mary Quite Contrary,

    The dollar is going down? Really, then why aren't interest rates going up?


    Your lack of familiarity with economics is astounding. The reason interest rates are not going up is because the Federal Reserve keeps printing money (and yes, it is a metaphor for what the Fed does) in order to maintain the supply above demand. This IS inflation, and the Fed will not be able to do it forever, so interest rates WILL go up.

    And the dollar IS going down. So are other currencies that are being inflated in kind, but that does NOT mean the supply of dollars is shrinking or constant.

    And even if it did, oh like it did in the 1980s which boosted manufacturing because it makes exports cheaper?


    Again, your lack of familiarity with basic economis is appalling (albeit not surprising): Whereas debasing the currency does indeed make goods for export cheaper, it also makes other very necessary goods more expensive - like capital goods and other imports. So whatever "benefit" you may get from currency devaluation, it is more than offset by increasingly higher prices for local producers and consumers.

    For the US, the 80s did not see the high levels of inflation we're seeing today and, instead, saw an increase in IMPORTS from Japan and Hong Kong. Your contention that there was a cheaper money policy during the 80's does not jive with reality.

  • LibertariansRLiars||

    So, NO INTEREST RATES HAVE NOT GONE UP. Yeah dumbass which means the dollar hasn't lost value. Metaphors don't prove anything. You didn't provide a single fact to support your delusion, instead you agreed with me that interest rates have not gone up. ha ha loser.

    No, there was cheaper oil in the 80s which made everything else cheaper. The Iran / Iraq War? Pay attention.

  • Rothbeard||

    Lol, wut?

  • ||

    Government borrowing costs = value of the dollar! HURRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    we need a troll cleanup on aisle 3.

  • Liberty||

    h

  • XM||

    I'm going to guess that majority of Romney supporters in the primary actually agreed with Paul's fiscal position, and wouldn't have minded if the wars came to an end and everyone went home. But they didn't vote RP.

    Many conservative leaning sites and talk radio did not support Romney early on. Romneycare was definitely an issue. So how was he able to put away his GOP competition in such convincing fashion?

    Face it, the GOP's base is center right "moderates" who'll eventually throw their support to the winner. The evangelicals, tea partiers and Paulites are a noisy minority or pluraity, their candidates just won't win.

    Paulites have the exact same problem as the GOP. If your group mainly consist of mostly white midwesternish people / college kids, you're not going anywhere. I could be minding my own business online and get hit by random Obama ads.

  • Robert||

    The teaser referred to "Romney's drubbing", only that didn't happen. The Republican Party is still highly competitive nationwide, and dominant in some areas. Must Reason too exaggerate the outcome of particular elections?

    Influential observers tend to over-interpret events. A special election of a US senator in Penna. was taken as a mandate for socialized medicine, but a few years later the abandonment of Hillarycare (which was undertaken in response to this apparent mandate) was taken as a rejection of the Democrats and of socialized medicine. But then a few years on we got Medicare D and then Obamacare. Stopped clock, you know. Inflation's coming eventually too, but when?

  • John C. Randolph||

    My only regret from supporting Ron Paul is that some douchebag in his campaign (probably Benton) stole his mailing list. I got a hell of a lot of junk mail from assholes like Boehner and Romney asking me for money.

    -jcr

  • ygsrf||

    2013 Happy New Year,NFL,NBA,fashion kickoff for u

  • Training Semarang||

    thanks for these info. visit our web on Training Center Semarang.
    please comment to improvement.

    success for you all.

    PELATIHAN SEMARANG

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement