no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

What Did You Really Think Would Happen if Ron Paul Won Iowa?

January 3rd, 2012

I wanna know what you expected to come out of all this Iowa nonsense.

Ron Paul addresses Supporters after Iowa defeat

Ron Paul addresses Supporters after Iowa defeat

Did you really think that a caucus win in Iowa was going to awaken the masses and inspire an electoral revolution? Revolutions are neither started, nor won, at the ballot box. Ideally, it does not come down to the ammo box. Remember that 70% of the electorate is so disenfranchised that they don’t ever bother to vote on anything. Ever.  The other 30% either believe that the system is actually designed to serve the public interest (it ain’t) or they are naive enough to believe that playing by the system’s rules can actually effect real change (it can’t).

Did you really think that the entrenched political interests would not have used such an “anomaly” as a Ron Paul victory to discredit the caucuses? Or that the mainstream media which has ignored Paul’s candidacy thus far would give a fair and balanced report?  They practically telegraphed this tactic the last few days, every major news outlet reading from the prepared script that a Ron Paul victory would be meaningless, and that it would only serve to undermine the importance/significance of the caucuses anyways (of course, when an establishment candidate wins, all of these arguments are left behind and the people are none-the-wiser, because they swallow everything the mainstream media forces down their collective gullets.

Did you really think this was going to change a damn thing? The system is so incredibly, indescribably, unimaginably corrupt that no amount of tinkering, no amount of swapping basically interchangeable cogs stamped with “R” or “D” but at the same time indicative of no real or measurable differences, up to and including the figurehead role of “President”.  And all this, of course, is to say nothing of how this system is per se illegitimate.

So tell me what you wanted out of this.

As far as politicians are concerned (fuck the whole lot of ’em, in my opinion) he is certainly among the least-objectionable and although there are certainly issues I take with some of his positions, the Republican field is an absolute nightmare compared to Paul. I’m not saying I wasn’t pulling for the guy.

I just want to know what other people’s expectations were. Mine were not very high, although I’ll admit to feeling a little giddy when I saw some of the early polling results.






Mitt Romney’s Lie Face vs. Ron Paul

November 23rd, 2011

I watched a little bit of the GOP debate last night. It was obvious to me that Ron Paul was pretty much owning everyone. I noticed something interesting though.

Sometimes the camera would pan to another candidate while Paul was speaking and this is when I noticed some strange behavior in the other candidates’ body language. When Paul was talking about the fake budget cuts, Mitt Romney’s facial expression was one of incredulity. But it was obvious to me that this was a feigned expression. As far as acting goes, it was awful, like bad daytime soap opera eyebrow acting awful.

Here is the full debate. It’s really long, but I have tried to timestamp a few relevant items for you.

If you fast-forward to about 55:50 this is what I remember seeing. Paul says,

Nobody cares about the budget! We’re in big trouble and nobody wants to cut anything. So if you want to keep sending foreign aid overseas and these endless wars that you don’t have to declare and go in to Libya without going to without consulting Congress. The biggest threat to our national security is our financial condition and this is just aggravating it.

Romney responds, first by introducing the phony $1 Trillion spending cuts, lies about it being all cut from the defense budget and then by deflecting blame to Obama. Clever! Notice that even while Romney is puking out these lies, Paul is attentive to what he is saying. His body language shows he is engaged and although he disagrees he is paying attention and thinking of how to respond.

Ron Paul debates Mitt Romney on foreign policy

This is where I noticed Romney’s lie face. First, when Wolfie says Paul wants to respond, watch Romney shake his head dismissively at about 57:12. Paul’s rebuttal begins around 57:16 and 5 or 6 seconds later you can watch Romney give him the full on eye-rolling, head-shaking you’re-so-crazy look.

Ron Paul debates Mitt Romney on foreign policy

Romney needs to persuade others in to thinking “Oh that’s just crazy Ron Paul with his crazy ideas about sound money and non-intervention…” so he puts on this mask whenever Ron Paul makes a true statement.  If Romney can convince the majority of voters that Ron Paul (or any candidate, for that matter) is crazy, or has crazy ideas, then he improves his chances of winning the election.  As far as his political career is concerned, it is in Romney’s best interest to lie.

I feel like I caught him lying. The expression on his face was supposed to imply “Ron Paul you’re a fucking looney tune” but it was obvious to me that Romney didn’t actually believe this lie he was trying to put forth.

I also noticed Gingrich doing it in a few places, too, like here (timestamped from a different video):

Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich the dickhead who cheated on his wife while she was going through cancer treatment

I would like to remind you that in addition to his desire to "strengthen" the PATRIOT Act, Newt Gingrich the dickhead who cheated on his wife while she was going through cancer treatment and then left her.

As far as mainstream political candidates go, Ron Paul is without a doubt among the least-offensive. It is funny to watch the other parasites in the political class react to what Ron Paul says. They don’t know how to react without lying, and it usually shows up in their body language.

Ron Paul has some ideas that  I don’t endorse like his rather unprincipled wishy-washy anti-federalism (which clouds a lot of his prescriptions) and particularly his failure to embrace just a little bit of the left when it comes to things like labor or the environment, etc. But he also wants to abolish a lot of shit that, frankly, needs to be abolished. Like perpetual war in 100+ countries around the globe, and the corresponding export of weapons of destruction that serve only to enrich well-heeled capitalists and government contractors (paid for by our tax dollars) and make the rest of the world less safe for everyone in it.

On balance I think he would be an improvement over the status quo by a long shot. He was certainly better than any of the 6 clowns he shared the stage with last night.

Ron Paul’s Bill Won’t Really End the War on Drugs

June 23rd, 2011

Today, Ron Paul and Barney Frank are proposing a bill that would end the federal war on marijuana. Naturally stoners and libertarians now want to have a lemon party with them (don’t google it). And although I am an occasionally vocal proponent for legalization and decriminalization, I’m among the minority of folks who aren’t all that excited about this.

Ron Paul and Barney Frank discuss upcoming lemon party

Why? Because it is a perfect example of Ron Paul’s unprincipled wishy-washy anti-federalism. Sure I suppose I would rather see 25 or 30 individual state “wars on drugs” than one enormous federal war on drugs. But what I really want to see is no fucking wars. If Paul is really that opposed to the war on drugs, on principle, then it is flat out retarded to grant the individual states the same powers which he is attempting to strip from the Feds. Why not propose a bill that say “No more wars on drugs, neither federal, state, county, or municipality. Period.”

“Let the states decide”, as any consistent libertarian knows, is a cop-out, albeit a politically-calculated one.

Also, I hate to break it to you. This bill isn’t going to pass the House and the Senate, and even if it did I’d give it considerably less than a coin-flip’s odds of getting past Obama’s flip-flopping meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss style “change”.  A lot of people will look at the intangibles, like how this brings the marijuana policy debate to the forefront of American politics. That’s a good thing but like my friend Matt said RP is “not the second coming of Christ” and this bill is essentially a publicity stunt.

All that said… I am not opposed to anything that strips the feds of their power, I just think that the jubilation that this bill will surely spark among many libertarians, tea partiers, social democrats, independents, etc., is not really warranted.

I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that we see legalization in the next 10-20 years, and maybe it starts with this bill, maybe not. But either way there’s still a lot of fight ahead so keep it in all in perspective.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics