NationStates

Good thing Ron Paul doesn't get his way then, otherwise federal criminalization of same-sex marriage would have been a thing thanks to DOMA and the MPA.

I feel it is unfair that he does not get as much media attention as the other candidates. I feel no of them can effectively run the country though.

WHS wrote:I feel it is unfair that he does not get as much media attention as the other candidates. I feel no of them can effectively run the country though.

No, it's fair. He's a fringe candidate even compared to the other fringe candidates, and the lack of media attention only helps his cause because the more he opens his mouth the more people realize that he's completely full of shit.

Should we give media attention to the Communist Party candidate? Because even he would be less extremist than Paul...

WHS wrote:I feel it is unfair that he does not get as much media attention as the other candidates. I feel no of them can effectively run the country though.

That is how the Free Market works, it gets to decide to focus on whoever they think will provide them the most revenue and viewership. Thus, the largest irony of how Paul and his supporters continually crying about the lack of attention he gets from the media.

WHS wrote:I feel it is unfair that he does not get as much media attention as the other candidates. I feel no of them can effectively run the country though.

This is why the civil service is extant.

Death Metal wrote:

WHS wrote:I feel it is unfair that he does not get as much media attention as the other candidates. I feel no of them can effectively run the country though.

No, it's fair. He's a fringe candidate even compared to the other fringe candidates, and the lack of media attention only helps his cause because the more he opens his mouth the more people realize that he's completely full of shit.

Should we give media attention to the Communist Party candidate? Because even he would be less extremist than Paul...

He's a fringe candidate?
Ever heard of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama?
Oh, wait, they are all the same candidates
Ron Paul is the only one with views that are independent of the normal two party system. Not saying he's the best candidate out there...
That title is reserved for a tie between Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson... and to a lesser extent, R. Lee Wrights.

Ravineworld wrote:

Death Metal wrote:
No, it's fair. He's a fringe candidate even compared to the other fringe candidates, and the lack of media attention only helps his cause because the more he opens his mouth the more people realize that he's completely full of shit.

Should we give media attention to the Communist Party candidate? Because even he would be less extremist than Paul...

He's a fringe candidate?
Ever heard of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama?
Oh, wait, they are all the same candidates
Ron Paul is the only one with views that are independent of the normal two party system. Not saying he's the best candidate out there...
That title is reserved for a tie between Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson... and to a lesser extent, R. Lee Wrights.

Do you understand the definition of fringe? If you think you do, please explain it to us.

Ravineworld wrote:He's a fringe candidate?
Ever heard of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama?
Oh, wait, they are all the same candidates

Except... not at all.

And of the four, only Santorum and Gingrich can be considered fringe, and even then they are closer to the mainstream GOP base than Paul ever will be.

Romney and Obama are moderates, but aren't even that similar as Romney is a conservative and Obama a progressive.

Whereas Paul is a bizarre mix of a confederate and a fascist.

Ravineworld wrote:He's a fringe candidate?
Ever heard of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama?
Oh, wait, they are all the same candidates
Ron Paul is the only one with views that are independent of the normal two party system. Not saying he's the best candidate out there...
That title is reserved for a tie between Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson... and to a lesser extent, R. Lee Wrights.

First, Obama, Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are not all the same candidates they do have various little differences between each other(with Obama's being greater in distance then the Republicans)

Secondly, as running as a Republican Paul is equally part of the two party system if he was truly independent he would run as an independent. Something he has never done in his congressional experience.

Thirdly, Paul is a fringe candidate in that a number of his positions are to farside of common American positioning. Aka, particularly his stance on things on wanting to drastically cut defense and get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. He might not be the most fringe candidate, but he is fringe in the same way many other elected politicians are( aka Sanders and Kucinich as two left examples)

Death Metal wrote:

Ravineworld wrote:He's a fringe candidate?
Ever heard of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama?
Oh, wait, they are all the same candidates

Except... not at all.

And of the four, only Santorum and Gingrich can be considered fringe, and even then they are closer to the mainstream GOP base than Paul ever will be.

Romney and Obama are moderates, but aren't even that similar as Romney is a conservative and Obama a progressive.

Whereas Paul is a bizarre mix of a confederate and a fascist.

I consider Gingrich more ambitious than fringe, of course though, he sounds corrupt as heck.

I would also consdier Ron Paul as a fringe candidate, along with Santorum...

Wikkiwallana wrote:

Ravineworld wrote:He's a fringe candidate?
Ever heard of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama?
Oh, wait, they are all the same candidates
Ron Paul is the only one with views that are independent of the normal two party system. Not saying he's the best candidate out there...
That title is reserved for a tie between Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson... and to a lesser extent, R. Lee Wrights.

Do you understand the definition of fringe? If you think you do, please explain it to us.

A bit of a personal comment there, maybe a hint of flame?
Fringe means extreme and away from the mainstream.

I dunno. When "Moon base/Future US state" is part of your platform, especially in a recession, that's a kind of left turn into fringeville IMO.

Ravineworld wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:Do you understand the definition of fringe? If you think you do, please explain it to us.

A bit of a personal comment there, maybe a hint of flame?
Fringe means extreme and away from the mainstream.

How was that a flame? At worst, that was suspicion of ignorance.

And again, how do you equate Paul as the only non-fringe candidate, especially when your critera pretty much is Paul to a T.

Death Metal wrote:

Ravineworld wrote:A bit of a personal comment there, maybe a hint of flame?
Fringe means extreme and away from the mainstream.

How was that a flame? At worst, that was suspicion of ignorance.

And again, how do you equate Paul as the only non-fringe candidate, especially when your critera pretty much is Paul to a T.

He isn't away from the mainstream within the politics he identifies with. I.E. Constitution party politics and Libertarian Party politics

That's nice, but even if that's true, he's not running with either party, is he?


Not to mention that both parties are fringe...

Ravineworld wrote:

Death Metal wrote:
How was that a flame? At worst, that was suspicion of ignorance.

And again, how do you equate Paul as the only non-fringe candidate, especially when your critera pretty much is Paul to a T.

He isn't away from the mainstream within the politics he identifies with. I.E. Constitution party politics and Libertarian Party politics

That is not really how you define fringe, instead you do from the general American perspective.

And out of that Paul along with the Libertarian and Constitution party are defined as fringe.

Hell, we got more Socialist members(Bernie Sanders) then we got Libertarian or Constitution Party(no one) members in congress.

Revolutopia wrote:

Ravineworld wrote:He isn't away from the mainstream within the politics he identifies with. I.E. Constitution party politics and Libertarian Party politics

That is not really how you define fringe, instead you do from the general American perspective.

And out of that Paul along with the Libertarian and Constitution party are defined as fringe.

Hell, we got more Socialist members(Bernie Sanders) then we got Libertarian or Constitution Party(no one) members in congress.

Technically that isn't true. There is a single libertarian in the lower houses. I am finding their name right now.

Death Metal wrote:I dunno. When "Moon base/Future US state" is part of your platform, especially in a recession, that's a kind of left turn into fringeville IMO.

Okay, overly ambitious.

Ravineworld wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
That is not really how you define fringe, instead you do from the general American perspective.

And out of that Paul along with the Libertarian and Constitution party are defined as fringe.

Hell, we got more Socialist members(Bernie Sanders) then we got Libertarian or Constitution Party(no one) members in congress.

Technically that isn't true. There is a single libertarian in the lower houses. I am finding their name right now.

Oh how original. Let me guess: His name starts with "R" and ends with "L", right?

Allrule wrote:

Ravineworld wrote:Technically that isn't true. There is a single libertarian in the lower houses. I am finding their name right now.

Oh how original. Let me guess: His name starts with "R" and ends with "L", right?

If you're thinking of Rand Paul, he runs as republican and I believe Ron Paul did as well.

Ravineworld wrote:

Revolutopia wrote:
That is not really how you define fringe, instead you do from the general American perspective.

And out of that Paul along with the Libertarian and Constitution party are defined as fringe.

Hell, we got more Socialist members(Bernie Sanders) then we got Libertarian or Constitution Party(no one) members in congress.

Technically that isn't true. There is a single libertarian in the lower houses. I am finding their name right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

That is Wikipedia's current list of members of the House, and there is not one independent or third partier found in the whole list of the 435 members. There might be an individual who additionally classifies themselves as Libertarian, but they either ran as a Republican or Democrat.

There are only two independent currently serving in the US Congress, that of Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Droopy...I mean Joe Lieberman.

I like the ad. I think it is a perfect symbol of what we are doing to the middle east. I like it. I hope he runs under a third party in 4 years so i can vote for him.

Puissancevise wrote:I think it is a perfect symbol of what we are doing to the middle east.

Only it's not. At all.

Revolutopia wrote:

Ravineworld wrote:Technically that isn't true. There is a single libertarian in the lower houses. I am finding their name right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

That is Wikipedia's current list of members of the House, and there is not one independent or third partier found in the whole list of the 435 members. There might be an individual who additionally classifies themselves as Libertarian, but they either ran as a Republican or Democrat.

There are only two independent currently serving in the US Congress, that of Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Droopy...I mean Joe Lieberman.

No, there is one in the lower houses. Like state level congresses. I can't find their name though.

Puissancevise wrote:I like the ad. I think it is a perfect symbol of what we are doing to the middle east. I like it. I hope he runs under a third party in 4 years so i can vote for him.

He's said that he will retire from politics after this. His son might run though.