Should ron paul run third party?

Post Reply New Topic

Damn, if only Jesse Ventura had decided to run. He's the only one I can think of who would've stood any chance but he didn't want to do it.

With Ron Paul still in the race, many in some states are being told he's out. This is complete BS!

I admire the man's integrity. How many of the other candidates would stay this long after the blatant icing he's been through.

Someone warned a few people that Ron Paul was on the blackout list.

He's published books on the subject. I'm fairly certain Paul has thought very carefully about the implications of gold-backed currency. He follows the Austrian school of economics, which I also tend to gravitate towards, which is one reason I like him.
He will not be able to get the same cash as Perot because of limits on donations, and he doesn't have large enough of a personal fortune to make up the difference. And there is no need for him to be Independent- several minor parties have already offered to nominate him.

Didn't Austria adopt the Euro?

Don't sit out the vote. Cast a suicide vote for Ron Paul. Whats the worst that will happen?

I'm not sure panda, but I think they might have been coerced behind the curtains to adopt it.

Here is David Nolan's Chart, which is a description of interest within Libertarianism. I believe once the dirt between the prevalent candidates are revealed, people from both parties will consider Paul.

Web Page Name

Kucinich was screwed over by the media as much as Ron Paul was/is. Too much truth give the media hives.

Yes, but the Austrian School of Economics doesn't refer to governmental policy in the political state of Austria. It is simply a pattern of economic thought which was originally put forward by thinkers in Austria. Most of its adherents today live in America. Austrian economics is very libertarian (especially the more extreme examples such as Rothbard) and advocates laissez-faire capitalism and free markets.

But, the USA started with a gold standard, then a silver standard, and now no standard.

Back in the old days of the gold standard, the US would go through booms and some terrible busts, with depressions and bank failures.

If the US money supply were fixed to the amount of gold kept at Fort Knox, then price levels would have to spiral downwards--as more goods are produced, given a fixed money supply--someone else can finish this thought....

Anyway, nowadays the Federal Reserve Board can tweek things to keep economic growth on a more-or-less steady track, target inflation and unemployment levels, etc.

A gold standard might tie their hands excessively, and we would be back to cycles of more pronounced booms and busts.

The USA never had a silver standard. For a while we adopted bimetallism (both gold and silver) but the election of McKinley over Bryan in 1896 sealed the death of silver money in America. The cause of those bank failures was due to people exchanging certificates (paper money) for gold and silver because the banks had been going on a fractional-reserve system and thus had devalued the notes they were issuing. This caused people to distrust the paper money, and so they demanded that banks redeem that money in gold, causing the bank to fail. The Federal Reserve really can not do much of anything to help economic growth. Nor do they have any power over inflation or unemployment levels- the Philips curve is a myth, and is not supported by the history of America's economy.

What is so suicide about voting your conscience instead of going with the black-and-white rhetoric of George. W. Apparently:

"Vote for W or the terrorists win"

OR

"Don't be a girly man."-Arnold S.

Okay, then, what does the Federal Reserve do?

By the way, our dollars used to be silver certificates

Yes, the silver certificates were in the days of bimetallism. We were never on a pure silver standard. The Fed is a central bank which prints money, sets interest rates, and in other ways influences the money supply. I tend to lean toward Austrian-school thought, so my biased view would claim that they don't do anything helpful. Neoclassical economists or Keynesians would argue that their monetary policy is an attempt to influence the economy, but they generally have to acknowledge that most if not all of those attempts fail. Much of their policy is based on the Philips curve idea that there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment, but evidence from the US economy does not bear this out. The policy irrelevance proposition, based on the rational expectations hypothesis, maintains that monetary policy can't have any effects other than inflation.

Back to the thread's actual topic: as an update, Paul has announced that he will not make a third-party run, so it appears that his bid for the White House will stop with McCain's nomination. I am somewhat disappointed, since he ran as a Libertarian in 1988 and I would like to see him do so again (or rather, for the first time, as I was born in '89). Since McCain's got the Republican nomination, it looks like I won't be voting in the general election this year unless the Libertarians or some other minor party nominates a candidate I like. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils, so whether it's McCain/Hillary or McCain/Obama I won't have anyone to vote for.

That is my point. The term "suicide vote" means a vote for a candidate you think will lose. I keep seeing and hearing people say thier vote won't make any difference if they vote thier concience. They say they will stay home and not vote.

I say vote your conscience instead of staying home. Enough suicide votes can raise the third party candidate from winning 2 or 3 percent to winning the majority.

Just vote - Don't stay home - Take back the process.

If a whole of people voted Libertarian, even if they knew the Libertarian wouldn't win, the numbers might be high enough to swing an election one way or another or come close it. They might make politicians want to embrace Libertarian values more to get the voters back with his or her party.

Not that I'm a Libertarian. I'd vote for a Green Party candidate.

And don't stay home! You vote for local issues has more weight than the one for the president.

The truth is, only a small number of people tend to vote for the loser if they feel they have no chance at winning the nomination or election. This doesnt been that they shouldnt, just most people like to feel they are on the winning side, even if they like another canditate better. What the US needs is a rallying of fringe parties and people to create a viable "third party", behind a canditate like a Ron Paul, not necessarily to win, at least initially, but to register a popular vote total that could not be ignored, even by mass media, to give people a true voice of opposition to the conformity of American politics. Is it possible im not sure, but in the internet age, the ability of the small to mobilize and make an impact is possible under the right leadership, guidance and alternative vision for the future.