What Will Tom And Lew Say About The Debate?

[dusman]

Me neither, not at all.

None of us would be here in the midst of...

...dare I say it?

R3volution V.3.0

...were it not for Ron



Yup, wrangling some of those cats



I too sometimes go out into my yard and yell obscenities at the trees.

...always makes me feel better.

...or that might be the whiskey, hard to say.

Oh you're one of those non-pure ones drinking whiskey. Pshhh... Vodka is where it's at.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, he jumped in the polls and there was excitement created. He needs to remember who his base is and forget about being too smart about playing politics. Hopefully he's got it now.

Got links? Every time I run across poll results in yahoo news or whatnot, Rand is in the bottom 3-polling in single digits.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

You know, they made a good point (that I had previously observed) about Rand and Cruz's tax plans.

Rand has 14.5% for individual and business. Cruz has 10% for individual and 16% for business. They basically add up the same, but Cruz's sounds much better.

Cruz also sells his plan better on stage. Rand should make a point that the first 50k of income is exempt in his plan to get everyone excited about it.

 

[dusman]

Got links? Every time I run across poll results in yahoo news or whatnot, Rand is in the bottom 3-polling in single digits.

Technically, Rand hasn't ever been bottom 3 in polling this entire race. #NeverForgetGrahamSantorumJindal

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh you're one of those non-pure ones drinking whiskey. Pshhh... Vodka is where it's at.

If you don't wake up with a hangover you're doing it wrong.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Any predictions?

I say they won't even mention Rand's name in their discussion.

They will be outraged that Rand did not spend 80% of his time on the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Origanalist]

Got links? Every time I run across poll results in yahoo news or whatnot, Rand is in the bottom 3-polling in single digits.

Ya, I'm talking about the polls on who won the debate. It may be fleeting, or not, but there's no denying it happened. Do you really need me to post the links?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

For those that missed the podcast.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Cruz also sells his plan better on stage. Rand should make a point that the first 50k of income is exempt in his plan to get everyone excited about it.

Indeed he should

It's by far the best selling point of his whole candidacy for most people out there (who don't know the Federal Reserve from Fed Ex).

Gigantic (yet credible) tax cut = win

 

[r3volution 3.0]

For those that missed the podcast.

So, no need to speculate further; what did they actually say?

...I won't be listening to it, on general principle, so I await the summary.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting and relevant to thread:

[h=1]The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters[/h]So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.

And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.
Some choice quotes:

1. "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
   
   "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."
   
   After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
   
   One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."
   
   Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.
In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)
When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.
But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters. Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation? Reporters at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine wrote that the author was likely longtime Paul-friend and combative polemicist Lew Rockwell.
Even though many of the newsletters are written in a first person, conversational style, many observers don't believe that Ron Paul actually wrote them.
There aren't any videos on YouTube with Paul speaking in incendiary terms about minorities. The newsletters don't "sound" like Ron Paul -- he doesn't do wordplay like "Morondon" or use prefixes like "semi-criminal" or "half-educated" in his speech or his recent writings. Further, most newsletter and direct-mail operations in politics employ ghostwriters.


So why were Ron Paul or his ghostwriters engaged in racism and conspiracy theories? And why did Ron Paul allow this?The first answer is simply that marginal causes attract marginal people.

The Gold Standard and non-interventionism have long been pushed to the fringe of our politics, and ambitious people tend to dive into the mainstream. That means that some of the 'talent' that marginalized ideas attract will be odd and unstable.
There are two strategies for dealing with this problem. You purge your movement of cranks to preserve credibility and risk alienating a chunk of supporters. Or you let everyone in your movement fly their freak flag and live with the consequences. Ron Paul, being a libertarian, has always done the latter.
The second answer to this question: These newsletters were published before a decade of war that has exhausted many Americans, before the financial crisis, and before the Tea Party.
All three made Ron Paul's ideas seem more relevant to our politics. They made anti-government libertarianism seem (to some) like a sensible corrective.
But in the 1990s and 1980s, anti-government sentiment was much less mainstream. It seemed contained to the racist right-wing, people who supported militia movements, who obsessed over political correctness, who were suspicious of free-trade deals like NAFTA.
At that time a libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard argued that libertarians ought to engage in "Outreach to the Rednecks" in order to insert their libertarian theories into the middle of the nation's political passions.
Rothbard had tremendous influence on Lew Rockwell, and the whole slice of the libertarian movement that adored Ron Paul.
But Rothbard and Rockwell never stuck with their alliances with angry white men on the far right. They have been willing to shift alliances from left to right and back again. Before this "outreach" to racists, Rothbard aligned himself with anti-Vietnam war protestors in the 1960s. In the 2000s, after the "outreach" had failed, Rockwell complained bitterly about "Red-State fascists" who supported George Bush and his war. So much for the "Rednecks." The anti-government theories stay the same, the political strategy shifts in odd and extreme directions.
As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing -- it was abandoned by Paul's admirers.
You can attribute their "redneck strategy" to the most malignant kind of cynicism or to a political desperation that made them insane. Neither is particularly flattering. Phil Klein of the Washington Examiner is correct when he writes:

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have both attacked each other for what was written in their respective books. If either of those books had included a number of overtly racist statements, their candidacies would be over before they started.​

This is undoubtedly true. The media seems to simply accept that Ron Paul has some oddities in his past and in his inner circle. They take his grandfatherly demeanor at face-value. In part this is because they believe he is not a serious candidate.
Winning the Iowa caucuses would change all that instantly. Undoubtedly the movement that Paul inspired has moved far beyond the race-baiting it engaged in two decades ago. Young people from college campuses aren't lining up to hear him speak because of what appeared in those newsletter about the 1992 L.A. riots. Rand Paul tried his hardest to place Paul-style libertarianism into the context of the Tea Party. And he will likely carry on the movement without this 1990s baggage.
But the questions remain. If Ron Paul is so libertarian that he won't even police people who use his name, if his movement is filled with incompetents and opportunists, then what kind of a president would he make? Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?
These are all legitimate questions. And the media is going to start asking them now. If there isn't already a "ceiling" on Ron Paul's support, widespread knowledge of the newsletters could build one quickly.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

For those that missed the podcast.

So, no need to speculate further; what did they actually say?

...I won't be listening to it, on general principle, so I await the summary.

Wait, you want me to tell you what they said, when the the audio is a click away? Go get it from the horses mouth and make up your own mind. Sheesh.

 

[dusman]

Basically calls for Rand to become Ron Paul 2.0 and channel his father. I don't agree. Some of Tom's alternative narratives are just bad to a GOP base right now. It's hard coming from Libertarian thought, to pull yourself from that and try and understand how to appeal to this kind of audience Rand faces, so I understand where Tom is coming from.

Overall, my feeling is they are begging for Rand to inspire them like Ron Paul. At times it seemed they were more impressed with Cruz than Rand, solely on the fact Cruz pays lip service. Ugh..

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

What's wrong with Walter? Aside from his defense of abortion, I can't think of any Thoughtcrimes he's committed from a libertarian POV. (btw, Believe it or not, the quite glowing commentary to "Defending The Undefendable"-in the first section of the book- is by none other than F.A. Hayek!)

Ron Paul wrote the foreword to Block's 2013 sequel to Defending the Undefendable, to boot.

 

[juleswin]

They haven't. jules and Rev3 are just butthurt other prominent people aren't stepping in line with Approved Opinion and Acceptable Behavior.

Its not about being butt hurt, I understand what they are doing. They are extra critical of Rand because they think he somehow think he should be above politics or something and present his ideas in a way that would make all anarchocapitalists cheer. My problem is that those 2 would then not hold people like Trump to the same standards. Had the criticism of the candidates been equally, I probably won't be speaking out. The nitpicking of everything Rand (done to Rand and Rand alone) says and does and the Trump pass after the first debate reviews got me to stop watching him. Its not about going outside the 3x5 card of acceptable political opinion.

Also about Tom's show, the show is truly a bore, the topics discussed are not interesting, the debate and the guests are very uninspiring and finally, when Tom Woods invites a guest to his show, he rarely challenges then on the points they make. Yes, he does this very softball devil's advocate question at the end but essentially he believes everything any of his quests says.

I am subscribed to him on his youtube channel and listened religiously for months. I would still listen to his pre written speeches cos those are still good but anything from his live radio show is complete garbage.

 

[Chieppa1]

Lew is just an asshole. He brought up Rand's plan to raise military spending. Which was only a ploy to show that he at lease would cut something to pay for it. Unlike Rubio.

 

[Occam's Banana]

My god it feels like middle school around here. We are here because we like Liberty, what's the problem? It's like we aren't allowed to having differing opinions around here or something.

Oh, yeah? Well ... yer a big fat doody-head! So there!

 

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/thomas-woods/taking-apart-gop-debate/

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

The only circlejerk is the one in this thread from the Rand kool aid drinkers. Sounds like you're all butthurt that Tom and Lew won't genuflect in front of your political master. What a sad group, you've become everything the Ron Paul campaigns of 2008 and 2012 were waged to fight against.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The only circlejerk is the one in this thread from the Rand kool aid drinkers. Sounds like you're all butthurt that Rand and Lew won't genuflect in front of your political master. What a sad group, you've become everything the Ron Paul campaigns of 2008 and 2012 were waged to fight against.

Hopefully that wasn't directed toward me. Look at my post history, I criticize Rand all the time.