Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style". . .

Post Reply New Topic

In this video Ron Paul discusses his concerns about the Federal Reserve.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

I believe we are beginning to see the economic dangers that Ron Paul fears. Whether at the gas pump or in the grocery store, inflation is setting in. I predict a year from now we’ll be living in a very different America.

Jacob good video. I hope he has a chance on winning ,knowing the voting system we have now.

I disagree with Ron Paul's economics. I don't think that the Austrian theory of the business cycle is correct but rather would think that unstable banking would be a greater danger, as would be deflation under a gold standard or similar system. Not only that but small levels of inflation are not bad and under 2% is in that acceptable region, inflating is necessary to deal with the increases in wealth that do exist, and those increases really do exist as we have had real growth in the economy, the reason for this ends up being our irrationality in how we look at money, we do not want to take wage cuts or things like that because of our manners of thinking and put an overemphasis on the physical dollar than what it can buy, thus meaning that a pragmatic policy would address that by having mild inflation to avoid some of the cutbacks. The areas that Ron Paul pointed out as growing in costs are becoming more expensive in real terms so even if we somehow eliminated inflation, those costs would still grow because they are partially being pushed on by demand, especially in terms of college expenses where most buyers are willing to sacrifice money for increased value with most trade-offs on that matter.

American will be very much the same as it was a year earlier. Now, this is no statement on how well we will do compared to others, simply a statement that we are not on the verge of most things. The major worry right now is a recession due to a weak patch in the economy, which we are currently going through, however, I have some confidence in the relative stability of America largely because the business cycle has been weakening for years and everything has been getting more stable.

To be honest though, I really have no idea what to consider your overall economic ideas though, as they are a disparate blend of whatever opposes current power structures it seems. Perhaps motived mostly by government(and perhaps corporate) distrust or something? The reason I state that is because to support a comment by Ron Paul on one issue and to attack free trade in another shows a strong level of eclecticism, the economic ideas of Ron Paul are more free trade than the average free trader, he does not oppose free trade deals because he disagrees with free trade but rather because the proposals are too unfree for him to consider and the theorists whom he goes by would probably go so far as to call free trade a human right. Ron Paul agrees largely with a variant of capitalism with almost no regulations or control, I don't know if you would agree with that but I think you wouldn't which leads to some issues with how the different ideas with different methodologies really come together well.

I’m not fluent on all the details of Ron Paul’s economic ideas. I didn’t post his statement to Chairman Bernanke to claim Ron Paul has perfected economic theory. Yes he is more of a free-trader then I probably am, however he is quite critical of how so called “free-trade” has been rigged by oversight groups and treaties to favor special interests. Otherwise my economic views, like Ron Paul’s, are quite Libertarian.

Ron Paul from the video:

Increasing the money supply is necessary to prevent deflation if the economy grows. Yet, as Paul notes, our economy isn’t expanding because of solid fundamentals like increased production, it’s growing from deficit spending and loose credit fueled by the Treasury pumping out paper money while the Fed keeps interest rates low. This is getting so out of control that the Federal Reserve stopped releasing its M3 money reports over a year ago. This move was seen by many as a way for the Fed to hide its tracks.

Actual inflation is not at 2%, it is probably closer to 10%. If you think inflation is in check then you are not spending. If prices are rising mainly because of demand, then supply would kick-in to reduce the pressure. This isn’t happening because supply/demand is not the problem. I haven’t experienced an increase of quality in much of anything in the last decade or so, in fact it’s been just the opposite. The cost of goods and services relative to wages has increased while the quality of those items goes downhill. Again, if this were purely an issue of supply/demand and quality, then the market would correct the problem. A consumer market correction hasn’t happened and shows no signs of doing so because that’s not where the problem lies. The problem lies with the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of the currency.

You beat me to the punch on writing about The Federal Reserve ceasing to report its M3 money supply data. isn’t that very odd I wonder how much are dollar is really worth now, probably about 3¢.

[GVideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=AMERICA%3A+Freedom+To+Fascism.+Aaron+Russo[/GVideo]America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version

I never claimed you did. Ron Paul is an Austrian in terms of economics. I know what positions Austrians take on these matters, I read their articles every day.


There is borrowing, there are also true increases in production and the fact that the US gets money back from foreign investors. Housing markets are getting tighter, gas is typically very changeable in terms of its pricing and fluctuates. Medical care is on the rise partially due to premium medicine, an argument made by Arnold Kling. As well, school tuition IS a matter of demand.

Our economy IS growing though, it has only recently hit a soft spot but it is still growing. Unemployment is still down somewhat, the stock market is still high, and businesses are still going forward. It is still invested in by foreigners, businesses are still buying, and people are still living their lives. Bernanke, who has the most to lose and would seriously have incentive to tell people the real state of the economy still says that everything is doing fine. If he had seriously hit a rough patch then he would know that the best thing to do to smooth it out would be to tell people for them to adjust their expectations downward and thus prevent a crash. Bernanke is an expert on markets and a great student on the Great Depression. It is one of his major interests. The fed is not in much danger here, even if they did create a crash they would not have anything to lose. It would be much more likely that this is part of a political business cycle where Bernanke might try to support favored politicians or something as argued by Angry Bear than the actual destruction of the economy.
Nope, completely disagree with all of the statements there. Quality has not collapsed, it is still quite fine and higher than in past times and cheap goods are still available at places such as Big Lots, dollar menus and thrift stores. All of which are signs of relative prosperity that we can get relatively good goods so cheaply. This has nothing to do with the manipulation of currency, this has more to do with changes in labor markets and other issues of that matter. The market wouldn't perfectly correct the problem, it would deal with it, but markets do not create utopic situations, they simply act with what they have to make things better, a simply supply demand analysis can tell you that equilibrium positions change though. The economy is doing fine, we still live in one of the best economies in the world and I think most economists would agree on that point.

A time reference is probably needed to make that claim, however, other scholars have indicated that our wealth has increased very very significantly since anything before 1900. What we consider the poverty limit today was better than the life of an average person back in 1900. Now, I will agree that the federal reserve should strive for openness, I don't fear them too much. Politicians are significantly worse than central banking systems and central banking systems are still a step above the wildcat banking the US has had in the past.

Uggh.. I am not watching that, it is too long. I have already tried watching part of that in the past but truly I think it is bs. The US is fine and I have read a good amount on Austrian economic theory as well as economic history so I really am not likely to be persuaded on my positions.

Fox News Claim Ron Paul's Online Voters Skewed Text-Message Only Poll!
Limbaugh, Neo-Cons pretend Ron Paul doesn't exist to prevent their delusional soap bubble from being popped

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, May 16, 2007


Fox News had an explanation for why Ron Paul did so well in their poll even after the deliberate smear job that constituted their presidential debate - online activists were skewing the numbers.

There's only one problem with that claim - the poll was by text message only and no online votes were taken!

Watch the video. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7XsSl3wIg[/youtube] It seems that the Neo-Cons who are hell-bent on destroying anyone other than their Neo-Lib icon Hillary Clinton, for whom Fox owner Rupert Murdoch regularly throws fundraisers, and will go to any lengths to try and dismiss the massive wave of popular support for Ron Paul, including by lying outright in claiming Internet votes swung the vote for Paul when no Internet votes were even taken.

This moron also states that Romney won the MSNBC poll after the first debate! Another total lie - Ron Paul won it hands down.

Neo-Con blog sites like Little Green Footballs are now removing Ron Paul from their polls because too many people are voting for him! This is not as a result of one person voting multiple times, as in all the online polls only one vote per IP address is allowed, but the operators of the site simply don't like Ron Paul and have chosen to ignore reality and pretend that he doesn't exist. Hillbilly heroin popping walrus Rush Limbaugh also accused Ron Paul supporters of spamming online polls on his radio show. These people do not seem to be able to grasp the meaning of the term "IP address" and how online polls are designed to block multiple votes from one person.

Here's a newsflash to all you chicken hawk fake conservatives - political campaigns and elections are about people getting involved and having their voices heard - this is called the "democratic process". More individuals are motivated to vote for Ron Paul over establishment bootlickers like Romney and Giuliani because Ron Paul actually stands for something and represents the majority view of the people living in the United States.

This is not "cheating" or skewing the vote, it's a reflection of popular opinion and just because it feels good for you to ignore that fact - God forbid it pop your phony little Neo-Con bubble - doesn't mean it's not the truth. Ron Paul clearly won the debate and heads up every poll taken other than Fox News' suspicious closed-door 3 hour text-message only charade, in which Paul came second behind Mitt Romney after a mysterious sudden swing in the last 20 minutes. http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/may07/ ... dotcom.jpg


Vote.com has the Texas Congressman way ahead of the pack on 63 per cent. http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/may07/160507WND.jpg


A World Net Daily Poll also shows Paul on top in front of pro-torture "Jack Bauer" acolyte Tancredo at 32 per cent.

Both ABC News and MSNBC show Paul trouncing his rivals again despite Fox News' best efforts to shoot him down last night. Ron Paul is made of sterner stuff and this snowball is only getting bigger!

Voting by text message is not a scientifically accurate method of polling. In polls of GOP voters by reputable organizations Paul gets around or below 1%.

My current favorite Mitt Romney is far behind Rudy Guliani, and John McCain. If Romney supporters texted huge amounts of votes claiming he was the winner of the debate it wouldn't magically make him the actually winner. Does anyone actually think Paul will win the nomination? Do people think if he doesn't (and remember Paul is a virtually unknown congressman who previously ran for President and got less then 1% of the vote) he got it stolen from him?

This is just an argument against instant polling.

(source)

Ron Paul generated extremely negative response on leading conservative blogs. "Congressman Ron Paul has the weakest ratings of any candidate participating in last week’s debate—14% favorable and 27% unfavorable." Congressman Ron Paul has the weakest ratings of any candidate participating in last week’s debate—14% favorable and 27% unfavorable. A former aid that assisted in his campaign for President on the libertarian President has announced he will for against him for the Republican ticket (three other people have already announced interest in taking him on).

Technorati spokesman: "Online support for Paul is genuine"!

Ron Paul has been on Technorati's top 10 most popular searches since the debates, and he is currently #1. The company says that there is no evidence of cheating and that Paul's massive online support is genuine.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Techn ... is_genuine

That could be well be 100% accurate however "massive online support" (whatever that means) does not equal massive support in the Republican primary or massive support in the general election should be decide to make a further fool of himself and run as a independent. The fact is that he is has the highest search total is not by itself evidence of popular support anymore in the United States anymore then if Michael Moore, or "Loose Change" would be evidence for support of Mr. Moore, or 9/11 conspiracies. The searches themselves, rather obviously, represent a wide variety of interests and often while they you may see names in the news that doesn't mean the higher the ranking the more popular the person.

Another obvious fact is that many of the strongest supporters of Congressman Paul are not Republican voters at all but some of those who are intensely anti-war on both the far-left and far-right. Digg's own message board, not surprisingly, features a comment advocating the pairing of Paul with far-left former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. Of course the idea that the libertarian Paul would accept such a ticket is ludicrous.

Paul is regarded as a buffoon within the Republican party base, a base of a party it is worth adding, still gives approval ratings of 75% or more to George W. Bush (Bush is unpopular with Democrats and Independents, but not Republicans). The idea that a party of which 3/4 of which still approves of George Bush's policies would adopt someone like Ron Paul, who denounces George Bush more then many of many of the potential 2008 Democratic nominees, simply makes no sense whatsoever.

i'm a republican voter.

Who stood out from the pack? * 24173 responses
Sam Brownback
1.2% Jim Gilmore
0.6%
Rudy Giuliani
13% Mike Huckabee
2.9%
Duncan Hunter
1.1% John McCain
3.5%
Ron Paul
62% Mitt Romney
12%
Tom Tancredo
2.1% Tommy Thompson
1.7%
Who showed the most leadership qualities? * 23919 responses
Sam Brownback
1.1% Jim Gilmore
0.7%
Rudy Giuliani
13% Mike Huckabee
2.4%
Duncan Hunter
1.3% John McCain
5.5%
Ron Paul
59% Mitt Romney
13%
Tom Tancredo
1.8% Tommy Thompson
1.8%
Who was the most convincing candidate? * 23787 responses
Sam Brownback
1.2% Jim Gilmore
0.8%
Rudy Giuliani
12% Mike Huckabee
3%
Duncan Hunter
1.3% John McCain
4.5%
Ron Paul
61% Mitt Romney
13%
Tom Tancredo
2.1% Tommy Thompson
1.8%
Who had the most rehearsed answers? * 23212 responses
Sam Brownback
2.3% Jim Gilmore
1.7%
Rudy Giuliani
35% Mike Huckabee
2.6%
Duncan Hunter
1.1% John McCain
22%
Ron Paul
7.8% Mitt Romney
21%
Tom Tancredo
1.9% Tommy Thompson
3.9%
Who avoided the questions? * 22888 responses
Sam Brownback
3.1% Jim Gilmore
3%
Rudy Giuliani
47% Mike Huckabee
2.4%
Duncan Hunter
1.6% John McCain
16%
Ron Paul
6.8% Mitt Romney
13%
Tom Tancredo
2.2% Tommy Thompson
4.3%
Who had the best one-liner? * 22778 responses
Sam Brownback
2.3% Jim Gilmore
1.8%
Rudy Giuliani
14% Mike Huckabee
14%
Duncan Hunter
1.7% John McCain
7.2%
Ron Paul
44% Mitt Romney
6.9%
Tom Tancredo
5.5% Tommy Thompson
3% http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18661344/

ABC NEWS The 10 Republican candidates running for president jousted over the issues and with each other Tuesday night at the second debate of the primary season.

Who won Tuesday night's debate?

Ron Paul
22,232
It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands.
1,834
Mitt Romney
384
Rudy Guiliani
367
None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson.
352
John McCain
171
Tom Tancredo
88
Mike Huckabee
51
Tommy Thompson
36
Duncan Hunter
34
Sam Brownback
26
James Gilmore
17
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/beseenbe ... 88=4000000

the thing is that they're online polls and don't necessarily represent the republican base but rather whoever votes in it which could be all independents or democrats as well.


ie, it could be a false-positive. though it may force the spotlight more on ron paul and force the media to give him attention and a more fair portrayal than the current "we're gonna be an as*hole to this guy" portrayal.

Okay, so am I, but again that in itself does contradict the fact that the when Republican voters are polled he shows 1% or less then 1% support. Look, I said before that right now I am leaning towards Mitt Romney, but from what I understand Mitt Romney is maybe at around 8% nationally. The fact that he is my current first choice doesn't change that. The fact the popular talk show host Hugh Hewitt, or the fact that he has been endorsed by prominent Republicans doesn't change that either.

The problem with Congressman Paul are several. 1. He is a virtual unknown until a few days ago. 2. He has limited practical experience (when asked about it in the debate he mentioned his time as a doctor; even fellow congressman Duncan Hunter could point out he was chairman of the Arms Services Committee, and his Vietnam combat record). 3. A significant portion of his views are not shared by the party, which for a presidential candidate, is very important. 4. He states things that, while he believes are accurate, cause (to use his own term) "blowback." When he suggests that it was US action that led to 9/11, he outrages and angers people. I am not talking about the accuracy of his charges, which I have previously discussed, I am talking about the use of such language in a political context. Many people, and most people in the Republican party feel that such associate such unrestrained feelings of anti-Americanism (although that's probably not what Mr. Paul intended).

Congressman Paul isn't really a Republican ideologically at all, although he certainly has the right to align himself any way his wishes. He actually ran as a libertarian, and he acts like a member of he votes like a member of one of the minor parties. He is an absolute isolationist on foreign policy and only reluctant voted for action against the Taliban after an aid essentially begged him to, rightfully telling him he would be defeated if he did not. His references to how the party "abandoned it's roots" are misleading in the party's roots are of little more then of a Northern anti-slavery party of former Whigs, Democrats, and anti-Masons. Due to this, great interparty debates emerged within the party on foreign policy. Republican President Grant wanted to annex Haiti but then congress demurred. It is under mostly Republican administration that the great Western expansion occurred. Democratic President Grover Cleveland was against the Republican's "imperialist" policies and axed plans to annex Hawaii. When he left office for a second time, new President William McKinley signed the annexation bill into law.

The Congressman bizarrely attempted to use Republicans of the past to defend his beliefs including Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and, more appropriately Robert Taft. Ronald Reagan did not conform to Congressman Paul's isolationist tendencies, and his among least defendable actions where leaving Lebanon after the American barracks where bombed (Islamists have openly acknowledged drawing the inspiring that America was weak from that response). Richard Nixon continued fighting a war against North Vietnam even while initiating a withdraw. Ron Paul would not advocate this. He also shipped arms to Israel to prevent it from collapsing to the Egyptian army, Ron Paul believes we should not support Israel. Ron Paul loves to cite Bob Taft however even Bob Taft didn't go as far as Ron Paul would go in his isolationism. Bob Taft was also not for scuttling the government like Paul is, in fact in many ways he was less conservative in government affairs then Ronald Reagan and his followers. Now these isolationists weren't alone. Despite modern historical documentaries to the contrary, in the mid-30s most Americans and most politicians (including the President of the United States FDR) had strong isolationist tendencies and very much wanted to avoid another war. As Hitler began his aggressions, useful idiots like Charles Lindbergh, and came to the conclusion that perhaps the Nazis weren't that bad and it was actually Britain that was really the warmonger.

After the war ended the Republicans had an inter-party debate about isolationism. The war itself had changed peoples minds, as well as the growing Communist threat. Arthur Vanderberg, for example, had once been a strong isolationist but was now a ardent hawk. In 1952 the issue would effectively be settled. General Dwight Eisenhower declared himself a Republican, and ran for the party's Presidential nomination. Some thought that Eisenhower was insufficiently conservative (something that some feel his record reflects, although in honestly he was rather conservative albeit reluctant to take on "The New Deal" on practical grounds), and, of course, he was not an isolationist like Bob Taft. Taft challenged him and lost. Eisenhower won the election in the first of his two landslides. Taft died in 1953. Isolationism (along with protectionism) would not reappear until 1992 when Pat Buchanan made his challenge to George H. W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Buchanan lost, and has disgraced himself by placing fourth with less then 1% as the Reform party nominee in 2000.