Trumping Ron Paul

I’m sure I wasn’t alone in cheering on Donald Trump’s impromptu remarks at the CPAC event last week with respect to Ron Paul, stating “honestly he just has zero chance of getting elected.” Well, duh.

Look, Ron Paul knows full well that he will NEVER be elected and therefore has the luxury of saying anything he damn well pleases, no matter how whacky, impractical, socially unjust, or deeply impolitic his ideas may be. Like our own “no hopers” on the margins of political reality, it’s all a bit of cheat really.

Of course the majority of libertarian whippersnappers adore this cantankerous old fart because they’re: a) completely self-absorbed; and, b) irresponsible boneheads with the foresight of gnat. One would like to think they might feel somewhat differently however were their folks impoverished or even perhaps made homeless by virtue of his theoretical “Austrian economics” actually being put into practical application for the first time in history.

Apprentice Update: Donald Trump shares some of his “ideas” about the economy on CNN (which essentially consist of kicking China in the nads and roughing up some other countries around the world or shaking them down for protection money):

I seriously doubt that Trump has the patience (or money, for that matter) to make a serious run for president, but it’s kind of fun to imagine what things would be like with this arrogant dickhead at the helm of the USA.

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under 2012 U.S. Election, Libertarianism

16 responses to “Trumping Ron Paul

  1. …the majority of libertarian whippersnappers adore this cantankerous old fart because they’re: a) completely self-absorbed…

    …or because they admire his lonely stands against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and the arrest of Julian Assange. They might also give him props for his virulent and relentless attacks against the corrupt neo-con cadre that ran Dubya’s White House and that remains an influential sector of the GOP.

    If I were an American conservative (that is, someone wedded to the ideals of Washington, Jefferson, et al.), I wouldn’t just vote for Paul—I would offer to arm, equip, train, and fund a highly motivated militia on his behalf, which I understand is the done thing in America nowadays.

  2. Penny

    You might be surprised to know, RT, that a group of Native Americans I’m involved with, many of them unable to pay their medical costs, and many of whom have kids being blown apart over in Eye-Rack and Afgnatistan, hate Obama, hate health care and support the troops who are saving their freedom and democracy. I know; I don’t get it, either.

  3. “Look, Ron Paul knows full well that he will NEVER be elected and therefore has the luxury of saying anything he damn well pleases”

    I don’t think we should condemn any politician because he is being honest, even if we disagree with them.

    Politicians who don’t say what they really believe because that is the way they can get elected is one of the biggest problems with our political system.

  4. Darwin: I have really mixed feelings when it comes to Ron Paul, because I agree with so much of what he says. But in the context of actually being POTUS… well, not so much. It’s not dissimilar to the way I feel about Gilles Duceppe. I like the man, agree with much of what he says, and think he would make an absolutely terrible PMOC.

  5. Will

    Palin got a whopping 3%…..HA!

  6. Penny: I’d need to know a bit more about the particular folks you’re involved with to be surprised by that. At least the “natives” you’re dealing with are concerned about more than the whereabouts of their next welfare handout, endlessly panhandling cigarettes and scoring a 2-4 of Bud at the local tavern. (Those would be my neighbours…)

  7. SF: I’m totally onside with you when it comes to his stance with respect to America’s foreign policy, but simply cannot ignore the whackdoodle aspects of his philosophy when applied to the domestic side of things. And see, that’s kind of my point here… he gets a free pass on all of that stuff because he’s not a SERIOUS candidate. Consequent to that, people are happy to just cherry-pick those aspects of his ideology they feel affinity towards and blithely dismiss the rest of his slash and burn agenda that would eliminate the FDA, DOE, EPA and NASA, amongst other things. Not to mention his questionable positions on social justice and civil rights issues…

  8. Red:

    Paul’s an American—the quality of which is not strained—so I expect whackiness on a whole range of issues. In the context of generic and virtually inescapable U.S. whackiness, though, I would take him even over “moderate” Dems like the vile Lieberman.

    I’m with Paul on NASA too, by the way: that preposterous white elephant has been sucking up massive appropriations without producing decent ROI for Americans for far too long. It’s nice to see that glorified Disney ride of a shuttle program finally getting mothballed after generating precisely nothing of value (except a couple of spectacular and entirely avoidable tragedies) over the course of a few decades.

    I like the man, agree with much of what he says, and think he would make an absolutely terrible PMOC.

    I think Duceppe would, at worst, add a pinch of integrity to the whiff of managerial competence that Harper’s supporters take for genius. I fail to see what damage Duceppe could do that Harper hasn’t done or wouldn’t like to do.

    What’s the danger here—that Duceppe would force a national referendum on Quebec sovereignty from Ottawa? For sure, the man doesn’t like Canada very much, but neither does Harper. If we haven’t the spine to reject a priori the prime-ministership of a self-loathing Uncle Tom like Harper, I cannot see why we would consider the rejection of a Duceppe ministry as an urgent necessity.

    …the whereabouts of their next welfare handout, endlessly panhandling cigarettes and scoring a 2-4 of Bud at the local tavern. (Those would be my neighbours…)

    Hey Red! Stephen Taylor just called. He’s found you a spot on the Blogging Tories after all. 😉

  9. SF: Ah, you are too precious by half, but I love you for it!

    Maybe the ROI on NASA isn’t everything it should be at the moment, but I’d say that just calls for a better mandate rather than scrapping it altogether. For starters, might I suggest that NASA send Joe Lieberman on a one-way ticket to Mars…

    As for the merits of putting Duceppe in charge of our national affairs, I would not be entirely averse to the exercise. I’m surely not alone amongst those few of us who’ve watched the leadership debates over the years who dearly wished they could vote for “that guy” if given the choice.

    Regarding the impolitic comment about my immediate neighbours, well, hey… that’s just the way it is here in the inner city of the ‘Peg. I don’t much like it, but it is what it is.

    And no, Stephen Taylor has NOT found me a spot on the Bloggin’ Tories. While they are totally down with the neo, paleo, and other weirdo strains of “conservatism” circulating about, they’re completely unprepared to accept “Red Tories” into their evil coven.

  10. You’re still in the ‘Peg? Oh, I see.

    I thought your comments indicated that you’d moved next door to me… 😉

  11. jkg

    If we haven’t the spine to reject a priori the prime-ministership of a self-loathing Uncle Tom like Harper, I cannot see why we would consider the rejection of a Duceppe ministry as an urgent necessity.

    Ah, but that would mean conceding that the federalism, which was conceived by the Fathers of Confederation, is to be openly rejected. It is the last pillar upon which the CPC can ever maintain that they are ‘conserving’ anything. It is sort of like a window ornament to hide the fact that your swanky Gastropub is really a divey hole in the wall.

    Also, we do know that Western Neo-conservatives absolutely love seeing Québec being screwed. It is sort of like penis envy really, or the sensation a wheezing nerd gets when the most popular jock at school gets summarily humiliated. Besides, the inherent irony in this is that the Neo-conservatives’ adoption of neoliberalism results in perceiving the Québec question from a point of view that their Québec’s ability to preserve their culture was at the support of the federal state. They would happily allow them to opt for sovereignty association if Canada cut all ties from them. After all, by the law of free market, it is a deterministic conclusion that they would eventually be annexed by the English majority. That would happen, of course, following the rise of the independent Alberta Super Province who would naturally dictate the terms of commerce to the rest of the provinces turned vassals.

  12. JKG:

    If you read Harper’s pre-2006 pronouncements on federalism (the extremity of which has been attenuated by the discipline of power), you’ll be struck by how little his vision differs from the old Parti Québecois formula for sovereignty-association. It’s old snake oil in a new bottle.

  13. jkg

    It is odd really. When his past remarks are raised, you would think that people would be scratching their head as to how this person could very well defend the Dominion. One wonders if trying so hard to give Harper credit for the Clarity Act is some how a magic wand used to wish away the piles upon piles of anti-federalist tendencies in his past writings and speeches.

  14. Pingback: Tweets that mention Trumping Ron Paul « Red Tory v.3.0 -- Topsy.com

  15. hitfan

    He’s a bit of a gadfly, but I agree with Ron Paul on all things involving social issues (like abolishing the war on drugs), foreign policy (he is anti-war in general) but I disagree with him on economics.

    Myself being a democratic capitalist, I think that there are areas of regulation which do hinder free enterprise, but I think that regulation is needed in order to prevent economic collapse and a tragedy of the commons. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    I wouldn’t really get rid of central banking with a return to the gold standard, but I would certainly make central banking more transparent and accountable.

    I certainly would have liked to see a Ron Paul VS Hillary Clinton match-up in the 2008 general election. If only for the fact that Hillary voted _for_ the war, while Ron voted _against_ it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s