Article Image
IPFS News Link • r3VOLution Continues

Ron Paul Highlights in 10/18/2011 Presidential Debate

Visit for all debates plus other interviews

9 Comments in Response to

Comment by George Voit
Entered on:

This Robin Koerner fellow operates like the Phantom of the Opera – in complete darkness. I am referring to his typical British ignorance of the intelligence of the American people. We Americans should remind him that we beat his English forebears – them harebrained Red Coats -- with nothing but our intellectual prowess -- even in a ragtag war. I have a book on the Revolution, which tells how we kicked them in the ass. I will send him a copy on Halloween!


Comment by Venancio Tan
Entered on:

This British analysis about Ron Paul becoming the next president of the United States is blown by the disapproving wind right into our American-made wastebasket.

Robin Koerner is a Briton … his analysis of Churchill’s defeat by the Labour Party of U.K. is not applicable to our traditional thinking in politics as well as cultural mores. Churchill, the war hero, was rejected in the polls by the British … and that’s purely the British, not the American way of thinking.

Here in America, the political mores exults "heroes" no matter how "unelectable" they are, like Ron Paul is to his handful of camera-scripted supporters, although the possibility of winning the election is less than that of a Chinaman’s chance or worse than that of Churchill.

Paul, the "hero" to those who hate and are desperate to eliminate the Government, the State and to destroy the "Evil American Empire", wanted to change America into something it is NOT, and will or COULD NEVER BE – actually a change not to reform but just out of spite to deface America in the eyes of the world – and to those few who would shoot Cops dead because in their mind only dead Cops are good Cops, he is that "hero" for that kind of change.

Koerner is musing with the fact that Ron Paul is a presidential candidate for change and because Americans wanted change, Americans will vote him president of the United States. The logic is skewed … and far removed from reality.

And here’s why: There is no question that we Americans wanted change since Obama first climbed the stairs of White House to rule the land – but what change does Ron Paul want? I have already stated repeatedly the many "odd" ideas of an "oddball" this presidential wannabe wanted to introduce … a candidate that America will NOT or could NEVER elect president, except perhaps in a mutant political accident where the crow turns white! [Bakadude]

The "avalanche of sand" Koerner was talking about that supports Ron Paul for president for a change [even less than "10 percent" cited] is an analogy that’s LOST in the sand of REALITY. It is ridiculous to compare RP’s support nationwide for a change like it is an "avalanche of sand". That’s an overworked imagination because there is neither any "support sand" nor an "avalanche" of support to speak of. Koerner is misleading an expectation that Ron Paul could become president based on his delusional analogy that could only happen when, according to Bakadude’s analytical wisdom, the crow turns white!

Koerner’s position: "But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest." Wrong! You are a winner if you bet that Paul COULD NEVER BECOME president. A journalist who headlines this truth is impeccably honest – a journalist who bet that Paul could become president is not only dishonest but a truly despicable liar.

Koerner is weak on his knowledge of the nature of man, much more ignorant of the American [not British] way of thinking. 911 is a trauma of all Americans [not of all Britons like Koerner], a nation treacherously attacked and injured by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorists. Ron Paul absolved terrorist of responsibility in this attack, and BLAMED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for this infamy. He was the terrorists’ post-911 apologists, in fact on record bin Laden’s mouthpiece … and here is Koerner asking all Americans to vote Paul as their president after he attacked and embarrassed them in the eyes of the world!

Under this reality, for Koerner to urge Americans to vote for Ron Paul as a reward after he attacked and shamed them, is NOT in the nature of man … it is a British ignorance of the American sense of right and wrong! Implying that Americans are that "stupid" is not a compliment at all! It is offensive to me.

And as a loyal and blue-blooded American who would not hesitate to put his life on the line to defend the stars and stripes, to me that’s an insult coming from a mean-spirited alien who knew nothing about us Americans that’s unforgivable!

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Great response, Psychictaxi. But we are all forgetting the most important aspect that will determine the outcome of the elections. Two questions, can Anonymous hack the the voting machines better than the one-world group hackers? And, is there someone who can advise Anonymous of the best areas to hack to get the most productive results?

Comment by Ed Vallejo
Entered on:

Ron Paul Can Win (A History Lesson)

Posted by Robin Koerner in Politics at

It’s hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.

Sometimes, perhaps once in a few generations, a nation can undergo what a mathematician or physicist would call a “phase change.” The classic example of such a thing is a pile of sand. Every grain you add makes the pile slightly steeper and slightly higher without moving any of the other grains inside the pile, until eventually one grain is added that causes an avalanche of sand down the sides of the pile, moving thousand of grains and changing the shape of the pile.

Such behavior can be exhibited by all complex systems, and a nation — it should be obvious — is much more complex than a pile of sand.

The important point for those who would presume to make such grand predictions as “Dr. Paul cannot win” is that no examination of the pile of sand before the point of avalanche would tell you that, or when, the avalanche will eventually happen.

But happen it does; indeed, happen it must.

And there are numerous examples of abrupt and dramatic phase change in the politics of great nations.

The U.K., the country of my birth, provides a compelling and closely relevant example. As every schoolboy knows, Churchill led Britain to victory in the Second World War. Indeed, he did as much as any man on Earth ever has to save civilization as we know it.

Three months after the entire nation poured into the streets to cheer this great leader (the man a few years ago voted by Britons the greatest Briton of all time), Churchill went to the country in a general election to retain his position as prime minister. There was simply no way he could lose. The best slogan the Labour party, his opposition, could come up with was, “Cheer Churchill. Vote Labour.”

And amazingly, that is exactly what the nation did. Churchill was defeated. No one anywhere — including the people of Britain who voted in the election — had even thought about the possibility. No newspaper had considered it. After all, the election was a foregone conclusion in Churchill’s favor. And yet an unseen, perhaps unconscious, will of the people caused a cultural and political phase-change in the British nation that they neither knew they wanted nor knew they had the power to cause.

Many historians now say that the unseen sentiment that produced this result that shocked not just the British but the whole world was the idea that all the blood and treasure lost to maintain the freedom of the British empire and the Western world demanded something more than continuation of the old political settlement. After a huge crisis, the people wanted a whole new system. In 1945, the Labour Party, with its vision of state-delivered cradle-to-grave security of health and basic material well-being (welfare state), in some way met that national desire for a grand political change.

Following what was in fact a landslide victory for the Labour party, the character of the nation changed massively, and more change rapidly followed in the British identity, as an empire was lost and the mantle of the world’s greatest power was handed to the U.S.A.

Those who have noted that one of Ron Paul’s greatest qualities is his humility might also be interested to know that Churchill had put down Clement Attlee, who defeated him, with the words, “A modest little man, with much to be modest about.”

Perhaps a more fanciful comparison, but nonetheless indicative: no one in China was predicting that the Long March of Mao, which began in defeat and despair, would end in Beijing with victory and the proclamation of a whole new nation under a whole new political system.

And which newspapers were pondering the possibility of the First World War just a month before it happened?

We cannot see past a phase change. I don’t know if the U.S.A. will have undergone one at the time of the 2012 election, but the necessary conditions for one are all in place, as far as I can tell.

One has to reach back a good way in American history for a time of such rapidly rising sentiment that not only are our leaders unable even to think of real solutions to the problems of greatest concern (rather than just making expedient changes at the margin), but also that the prevailing political and economic system is structurally incapable of delivering any long-term solutions in its current form.

The sheer range and interconnectedness of the problems that the nation faces are such that any permanent solution to any one of them will require profound systemic change that will necessarily upset many economic, political and cultural equilibria. And that is nothing more than a definition of a national phase change.

The average American may not know what is to be done, but she can sense when the system has exhausted all its possibilities. At that point, not only does the phase change become reasonable; it becomes desirable — even if what lies on the other side cannot be known.

As anyone can find out just by talking to a broad cross-section of Ron Paul’s supporters, his base is not uniform in its agreement on the standard issues of typical American party-political conflict. In fact, Paul supporters vary significantly even in their views of what in the old left-right paradigm were the “wedge-issues.” Rather, they are united around concepts that could almost be called meta-political: whether left and right really exist, and, if they do, whether they are really opposed; whether centralized government should even be the main vehicle for political change, etc.; and whether there are some principles that should be held sacrosanct for long-term benefit, even when they will hurt in the short-run.

For those with eyes to see, such realignments and re-prioritization may even be glimpses of America after its next phase change.

If Ron Paulz has committed support from 10 percent of the adult population, and most of that 10 percent support him precisely because they believe he represents a whole new political system, an entirely new political settlement, then we may be close to critical mass — just a few grains of sand short of the avalanche.

Another piece of evidence that the nation is close to a phase change and a gestalt switch is the very fact that the prevailing paradigm (from which the mainstream media, established political class, etc., operate) has to ignore huge amounts of data about Ron Paul and the movement around him to continue to make any sense. The studied neglect of data as “irrelevant” is invariably indicative that the neglected data are hugely important. If information doesn’t really matter, why go to all the effort of ignoring it?

Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.

First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.

To believe that Ron Paul’s victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation’s politics — and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.

If it is true that the studied neglect of data to hold tight to a paradigm is the best evidence that the paradigm is about to collapse, then the massive and highly subjective neglect of all things Paulian is specific evidence that the country is moving in Paul’s direction.

Of course, none of this means that Paul will definitely win. But it does mean that a bet against him by a politician is foolhardy and by a journalist is dishonest.

It is worth returning to Churchill’s career for an even more delicious example: just days before he became the great wartime leader, his career had been written off as that of a kook, and he was being discussed as someone who had extreme ideas and whose thinking did not reflect the mood of the nation. The House of Commons was abuzz with his decline and imminent fall.

And then, rather suddenly, something he had been saying for many years — that there was something rotten in the state of Germany — became so obvious that it could no longer be avoided. Once the nation saw that he had been right all along, he became the leader of the free world in very short order. His career changed. Britain changed. The world changed. No one had seen that coming, either. In fact, everyone thought they knew what was coming: the kook was about to disappear into political backwaters, if not the political wilderness.

Do I even need to draw the parallel?

If Paul wins, it won’t be because he is the kind of candidate Americans have always gone for. It will be precisely because Americans have collectively decided on a dramatically new way of doing business — a new political and economic paradigm — and then he’ll not only have ceased to be a long shot; he’ll be the only shot. 

Comment by Venancio Tan
Entered on:

This view of Ron Paul comes from the wrong end of the telescope!

"Dr. Paul storms across the United States fighting for you and your family's future, for the future of our Republic" He is not fighting for me – he is fighting you and me, he is putting our family’s future in great danger – he is "fighting" to destroy the future of our Republic … can’t you see? We owe this wake up call to Bakadude who brought this up first.

You are viewing his "unelectable" presidential agenda or looking at his unreal anti-U.S. programs or cavorting with his "distorted" thinking … very crooked ideas indeed, if you may, to change America from good to bad, and bad to worse.

As Bakadude had previously pointed out, I hate to say this to remind you – with no offense intended -- that millions of Americans see him as a "gadfly", an "unelectable" nuisance or a busybody that cheers his gathered and scripted handful of "followers" in front of the camera that annoys the general public; because the Republicans are aware that he is an anarchist revolutionary, described as a "Libertarian in extremis" disguised as a Republican, the Republicans expect him to drop out of the GOP presidential nomination race at the earliest time possible.

Unfortunately, when you clap your hands for Ron Paul like some very visible "supporters" do, like them you are viewing what he is doing, and what he intends to do, obviously at the wrong end of the telescope!

Comment by Ducati Jeanne
Entered on:

Let it not be said that we did nothing........get up, stand for something. 

It is so easy to issue forth negative comments; paragraphs of  negative opinions, meanwhile, Dr. Paul storms across the United States fighting for you and your family's future, for the future of our Republic.

See you on the streets! Or not!  





Comment by Venancio Tan
Entered on:

You are right JV. Quoting me that Ron Paul does not even have a Chinaman’s chance of being nominated GOP candidate for president because of his NOT ELECTABLE ideas, is as real as the crow is black and can never be white.

You are also right that he can be president of the United States only when the crow turns white!

Maybe you can wait until he drops out of the race like last year, like the year before that, and still like the year even before that. But it shows that Libertarians can raise money, even if they field candidates under the name of any other political parties, perceived as bad as what the Media described as the likes of Ron Paul – candidates that are "unelectable".

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

Presidential Debate Highlights Why Paul Could Never Be A GOP Candidate For President …

No candidate in the panel wants to comment on or contradict what Paul was going to do if elected president, like cutting the national debt by $1 trillion this year. He would get it from abolishing some departments of the Federal Government like the Dept. of Education, etc., and cutting down spending on "Militarism", i.e., closing U.S. military bases abroad and getting rid of foreign aid.

In the back of their mind, panel candidates are probably laughing [Video camera catches them giggling] because Ron Paul had no idea what are the consequences of this action of the President of the United States. The importance of education in this country is one of the topmost agenda of the presidency next to national security. Can anyone imagine the United States of America WITHOUT a Department of Education, at least in the eyes of the world, the only country without a Department of Education? C’mon, let’s be serious.

Can you imagine what the CONSEQUENCES to the world are if the U.S. withdraws its support of Israel, close all its Military Bases all over the world TO SAVE money, and cut off foreign aid to poor nations in trouble where people are killing each other because they are starving, suffering diseases for lack of medicine, ignorant for lack of education, etc.? Not a single Republican candidate in the panel was stupid enough to waste his/her time to educate Ron Paul on the consequences of his rather weird ideas that obviously were allowed to run wild – to make sure that he gets eliminated.

Anyway, the Republican candidates knew that the Congressman from Texas does not have even a Chinaman’s chance to win the GOP nomination for president … like his chance of becoming president of the United States is similar to the occurrence of that event when the crow turns white! Let’s stop this funny joke and stop pretending that what the public hears from Ron Paul is real! It raises money and it’s fun, but let’s stop pretending it is real! I do not intend to offend anyone by saying this, but somebody must tap our head to remind ourselves that with this Video, we are just having some fun.

Comment by James Arft
Entered on:

 Ron Paul presented himself very well. 

The abolishment of anti constitutional sections of government like the dept of education to balance the budget is great.  However, I think that he should give the choice-- Either we balance the budget and deal with the debt now or the taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes,  go deeper into debt and hasten our national decline.  Can you afford to pay more in taxes?  Do you think it is fair to burden yourself and the children with a much larger humungeous national debt?  Do you want to kill the american dream?  Or, do you want to support my common sense plan help Americans and America?