Rachel Maddow: Will Ron Paul’s Success Alter the GOP?

[KingRobbStark]

I will answer that question with an even easier question. Is Rachel "the Madcow" Maddow the ugliest, nastiest neo-con available for viewing on all of the mainstream medias?

At least she's covering this.

 

[DeMintConservative]

If they cared about representing people and being a voice to the non-Democrats, they should welcome the Paul supporters, try to understand why we're not happy with Romney, and be open to change.

I'm sure Paul supporters are welcome to the party - as anybody else - as long as they actually want to be in the party. And that implies supporting the party nominees and, for state organizations, to work to get Republicans elected: and not only those Republicans you like. Just like Rand Paul or Amash got the support of the local parties in KY and MI and of many Republicans who aren't Paul supporters to get elected.

Or is your definition of welcoming more in the lines of "picking the guy I want to be the presidential nominee even if he only gets 10% of the popular vote in the primary"?

 

[DeMintConservative]

At least she's covering this.

Of course. It benefits the Democrats.

 

[mczerone]

I'm sure Paul supporters are welcome to the party - as anybody else - as long as they actually want to be in the party. And that implies supporting the party nominees and, for state organizations, to work to get Republicans elected: and not only those Republicans you like. Just like Rand Paul or Amash got the support of the local parties in KY and MI and of many Republicans who aren't Paul supporters to get elected.

Or is your definition of welcoming more in the lines of "picking the guy I want to be the presidential nominee even if he only gets 10% of the popular vote in the primary"?

No, my idea of welcoming is that they understand why I'm not going to support some guy who doesn't share my ideals. That they accomadate an influx of people that share their stated values, but recognize that the old guard isn't representing those values.

If part of joining the GOP to take it over is supporting the typical GOP candidates, then count me out. I'm not interested in supporting little tyrants to try to get them to support one of my "good guys".

And really ask yourself if these GOP people would be happily falling behind Ron if he won the nomination. They'd be rancorously opposing thier party's nominee. Would you be telling them that they aren't welcome to the party to support their local guys if they disn't support the presidential nominee?

 

[DeMintConservative]

No, my idea of welcoming is that they understand why I'm not going to support some guy who doesn't share my ideals. That they accomadate an influx of people that share their stated values, but recognize that the old guard isn't representing those values.

If part of joining the GOP to take it over is supporting the typical GOP candidates, then count me out. I'm not interested in supporting little tyrants to try to get them to support one of my "good guys".

How's that supposed to work? It seems a little imbalanced no? Do you think everybody in the party structures supporting Amash and Paul agreed with them?

Again, if your idea of being welcome is getting everybody else to support who you like but without you even bothering about supporting those you don't like, I think it would make more sense for you to create your own party.

And I find your notion of "being welcomed" quite disturbing to say the least.

And really ask yourself if these GOP people would be happily falling behind Ron if he won the nomination. They'd be rancorously opposing thier party's nominee. Would you be telling them that they aren't welcome to the party to support their local guys if they disn't support the presidential nominee?

Yeah, I sure would. I can understand a Republican sitting out the odd election or skipping a ballot line because they can't really support the candidate. I've done that myself in the past. Of course, if you can only support 5% of the nominees, then maybe you need to find another party for yourself.

But if you're running a party structure, local or statewide, then it's your job to support pretty much every Republican candidate, regardless of how you view him - and certainly those who won the primary/caucus vote in your state. You don't get to pick to who you support in general elections in those positions. Parties are just vehicles, they aren't ideological structures or arenas for ideological fights. A party's ethos is its party discipline. A party structure going rogue is pretty much self-defeating.

So yeah, a state party not supporting Republican nominees because they don't like them - and Republican nominees who won primaries in their states! - is completely inadmissible. Party structures work for the party nominees, not for candidates the people running them like. You don't want to live with this? Stay away from those positions or from the party altogether.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I think by "Welcome" is meant to treat with respect and follow the rules. If you look at the video proof of Ron Paul supporters being hit, arrested, etc.. for just following the rules, or where rules are broken by the establishment and slates ramed through with motions being ignored you will understand what is meant by not feeling welcome.

edit: Although I agree that when taking over the party they will have to support the party as they make changes to it but that does not mean they must support Romney at this point (he's not the nominee).

 

[sailingaway]

So what states should be donated to? I have been trying to organize more here in Ky, but will try to pass around some money to some other states to help as well.

I think we want to do it by moneybomb so it CLEARLY comes from the Ron Paul faction, just as the withholding is clearly being used against us. But the states are Minnesota, (although I think we let them keep their treasurer so maybe we'll let them keep their million in debt, too), Iowa, Nevada, and Alaska (but only in a way the current outgoing chair doesn't get it) Maine and Louisiana ONLY if we get our actual delegates and meeting recognized as we should.

 

[sailingaway]

If you look at the best GOTV example we have in our so-called movement it would be Rand Paul's election, run by many of the same people involved in Ron's campaign. But Rand didn't reach out to the vocal groups of people I mentioned in my above quote. He went after the sure-to-vote GOP voter. Sure, those groups of non-republicans and non-voters don't like Rand, but he GOTV better and won.

\

a ton of the phone from home was by Ron Paul grass roots, I know I did at least hundreds of calls.

 

[gte811i]

How's that supposed to work? It seems a little imbalanced no? Do you think everybody in the party structures supporting Amash and Paul agreed with them?

Again, if your idea of being welcome is getting everybody else to support who you like but without you even bothering about supporting those you don't like, I think it would make more sense for you to create your own party.

And I find your notion of "being welcomed" quite disturbing to say the least.



Yeah, I sure would. I can understand a Republican sitting out the odd election or skipping a ballot line because they can't really support the candidate. I've done that myself in the past. Of course, if you can only support 5% of the nominees, then maybe you need to find another party for yourself.

But if you're running a party structure, local or statewide, then it's your job to support pretty much every Republican candidate, regardless of how you view him - and certainly those who won the primary/caucus vote in your state. You don't get to pick to who you support in general elections in those positions. Parties are just vehicles, they aren't ideological structures or arenas for ideological fights. A party's ethos is its party discipline. A party structure going rogue is pretty much self-defeating.

So yeah, a state party not supporting Republican nominees because they don't like them - and Republican nominees who won primaries in their states! - is completely inadmissible. Party structures work for the party nominees, not for candidates the people running them like. You don't want to live with this? Stay away from those positions or from the party altogether.

Oh please come off of it. All hail the Grand Old Glorious Party! Just showing blind allegience to anyone or Party is what has gotten us in the mess we are in today. Anytime I've told anyone outside my family I'm involved the immediate response is why would you want to join such corrupt organizations (speaking of political parties in general).

It is very simple, the more a candidate reflects the values of an organization or group of people the more people will go to bat and work hard for that person. Even if you are in a big Party position, blindly supporting someone who doesn't inspire people to work for them is just plain dumb. See McCain 2008.

You are right the Party is a vehicle to get candidates elected, but the battle should be over recruiting the right candidates that will inspire people to work hard for them.

I would suggest those who believe in such strong allegience to the Party read a section from Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" call "Why the worst get on Top" and do some actual historical research on the german nazi party. A lot of people didn't actually believe in nazism, they just showed blind allegience to the party. All Hail the Party!!

 

[Mini-Me]

There are only two paths for the GOP: We take over and make it work for us to the exclusion of neocons...or we take over and the party dries up, giving a third party the opportunity to replace it (and in the midst of that power struggle, there's a chance the election laws could be changed to abolish the two-party system altogether). Taking over only to continue supporting neocons is not an option. Their days are numbered, and we will NOT let them continue ruining this country.

 

[jj-]

^^ I thought their days were numbered because we were close to the point where China stops lending, or where there is not enough money to finance the military.

 

[Mini-Me]

^^ I thought their days were numbered because we were close to the point where China stops lending, or where there is not enough money to finance the military.

Impending collapse also limits their future influence, but the loss of China as a lender would only be the beginning of the end. The neocons would monetize the existing debt, allow the Fed to directly buy new Treasuries (infinite money), and start World War III to maintain control of worldwide oil before actually giving up. You're familiar with the idea of "continuity of government" plans, correct? It means what it sounds like...clinging to the reins of power no matter what. The only reason they'd actually let the government dissolve or downsize during a collapse is to promote a one world government afterward...which could also be neocon in nature. The neocons and globalists share a lot in common and overlap a lot, but sometimes I wonder if there might be a real difference of opinion between them as well.

 

[jj-]

Impending collapse also limits their future influence, but the loss of China as a lender would only be the beginning of the end. They'd monetize the existing debt and allow the Fed to directly buy new Treasuries (infinite money) before giving up.

But wouldn't that produce high inflation in like a month?

 

[specsaregood]

But wouldn't that produce high inflation in like a month?

I guess it depends on if they hide it. I thought they'd already started doing just that years ago.

 

[jj-]

I guess it depends on if they hide it. I thought they'd already started doing just that years ago.

I think the government spends $50,000 per second in borrowed money. I think the important players will know that they'll have to create that amount of money, so unless a very visible drastic cut in government expenditure occurs, it's the end.

 

[Mini-Me]

But wouldn't that produce high inflation in like a month?

Sorry, check my new edit. I was too busy to get it in quickly. (Long story short, they'd rather start World War III than cut spending.)

 

[jj-]

The neocons would monetize the existing debt, allow the Fed to directly buy new Treasuries (infinite money), and start World War III to maintain control of worldwide oil before actually giving up. You're familiar with "continuity of government" plans, correct? The only reason they'd actually let the government dissolve or downsize during a collapse is to promote a one world government afterward...which could also be neocon in nature.

Seems incredibly unlikely that once they lose their borrowing power they'll be able to finance a new war. They won't even have enough money to run the government day to day, probably will not be able to pay social security. That'll create a lot of unrest which will make very hard to start a war. And if they do, the money will run out even faster. So I guess we might have a point of disagreement.

 

[CaseyCBenn]

You know the United States of America is in trouble if we have to have a court case to be able to "vote our conscience".

Just let it be known then that it is Mitt Romney's side of the court that is aiming to keep people from voting their conscience.

Maddow had previously made a video how Ron Paul is stealing the election with the delegate process by essentially stating that, regardless of the popular vote, he is using some "old rules" to force a win against the wishes of "the people"

Showing she doesn't understand the checks and balances of a true republic and, like most uninformed Americans, always talks about the "democracy".

Maddow doesn't care for Paul or Romney. She ultimately wants whatever "D" is running. If it looks like Ron Paul is a threat to Obama then she will vilify him. If its Romney well then she will use anything (read this video) to divide and conquer Obama's possible election challenge.

 

[Mini-Me]

Seems incredibly unlikely that once they lose their borrowing power they'll be able to finance a new war. They won't even have enough money to run the government day to day, probably will not be able to pay social security. That'll create a lot of unrest which will make very hard to start a war. And if they do, again, the money will run out in months. So I guess we might have a point of disagreement.

If you have a pervasive police state, you can nationalize industries and force domestic production to support the war effort for a long time. That's the thing about full-blown socialism and fascism (as in, central planning): Once you bypass the pricing mechanism and put everything off the books by nationalizing major industries, you can continue materially supporting a ludicrous military even when the people are starving, as long as you keep the people docile with extreme levels of propaganda and police presence. That's how North Korea continues to function.

Printing money without an outside lender would crush worldwide confidence in the dollar, but other countries would have to play along or go to war with us if we maintained the petrodollar standard through direct physical (military) control over oil production...and that's just the thing. Why do you think we have over 700 bases in around 130 countries (or is it more like 900 now)? Establishing direct physical control of oil quickly would be imperative for the war effort, because our own economy relies on oil. Depending on the response of other countries, war may or may not even happen: The petrodollar would still be in place once the US had direct physical control of oil, and other countries could choose to maintain the status quo (export goods to the US and invest in US businesses for dollars for oil), or they could respond with military force.

The neocons would totally do this before admitting bankruptcy.

 

[jj-]

If you have a pervasive police state, you can nationalize industries and force domestic production to support the war effort for a long time. That's the thing about socialism (as in, central planning): Once you bypass the pricing mechanism and put everything off the books by nationalizing everything, you can continue materially supporting a ludicrous military even when the people are starving, as long as you keep the people docile with extreme levels of propaganda and police presence. That's how North Korea continues to function.

I don't think you can do that without money. Money is necessary to coordinate production, and the money will be in rapid decline, just because Americans won't want to hold cash, even if the U.S. gets other countries to do what they want. My bet in that scenario is that production will be very inefficient, not even talking about the war here, but to fulfill the basic needs of the population, and the wealth will be dissipated literally in a month. I don't think you can keep a population docile when they're starving, and 50% of them have guns.