The Ron Paul Campaign's 3 Biggest Mistakes [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Xhin

05-30-2012, 10:52 AM

+rep to Acala

As a progressive myself, I can say that he has not failed to win over progressives.

There are definitely things the Ron Paul campaign could have done better.

He could have been more aggressive about his campaign, emphasizing where his contributions came from, his consistent voting record, his ridiculously strong grassroots support, his consistent electability to the House, etc. He missed many opportunities to do this when it could have swayed voters and given the media to not completely ignore him, as well as dispelled constant criticisms of his campaign.

As far as his issues go, he could have spent more time on specific solutions like his "Restore America" plan, rather than vague generalities of libertarian and constitutional principles. In debates, he would spend more time citing history to rationalize his arguments than the actual arguments themselves. Liberty is simple, and that's what's great about it -- but to sell it you must show how it affects everything and makes many diverse situations better.

That said, the race isn't over yet, and you're a fool if you think he's incapable of winning.

Just consider for a moment that he has won a majority of delegates in several states -- despite not winning the majority vote in a single state and only coming in second place a few times. Think about that for a minute, and then realize that all the work the grassroots has done in the face of overwhelming media blackouts, followed by overwheming media and party criticism, and now apparently even as his campaign has stopped trying to get votes.

This is not a case of a presidential candidate running for office. This is a case of a movement growing due to a presidential candidate, and it will ultimately be the movement rather than the campaign that puts him into the white house.

jmdrake

05-30-2012, 12:11 PM

I can't believe it. I actually have to +rep "progressivesforpaul". Two out of the three he brought up were arguably mistakes. And yes the keyword here is "arguably".

Point # 1: We came close to winning in Virginia without campaigning. I've talked to people close to the campaign who said we couldn't have won even if we had put in the effort, but there's not way to know that now is there? We did need one definite unqualified "win" to overcome the blackout. We tried to get that in Iowa but didn't quite get it. Which brings us to point # 2.

Point # 2: Yeah, I've heard the arguments as to why the newsletter issue didn't hurt us, and frankly I'm not buying it. At the very least the newsletters were a distraction that hurt momentum. What ended the newsletters as an issue? That wonderful "compassion" ad from RevPAC. (Wish I had had the extra money to donate to RevPAC). Had that ad come out sooner Ron might have been able to do interviews without the race issue coming up in those last two crucial weeks and made it over the top in Iowa. In 2007/2008 it was Alex Jones and someone else who's name escapes me that found the black NAACP district head who was willing to vouch for Dr. Paul. I'm not sure why there wasn't a more concerted effort to get out ahead of this issue in 2012 when everybody knew it was coming up. The RevPAC ad should have been cut and ready to go before it was needed.

Point # 3: Here's where "progressivesforpaul" jumps the shark. Nobody and I mean nobody announces VP picks before clinching the nomination and for obvious reasons. And openly calling for a progressive "coalition" would have killed Ron Paul's chances. That's the simple truth. Besides, who have been the pick? Dennis Kucinich? The guy that couldn't even hold his own seat? (Yeah I know, redistricting hurt him. But he still should have been able to hold it. If he couldn't then how could he win any statewide race let alone a nationwide one?) And the OP contracts himself calling for "compromise on economic issues" when earlier in the post he said:

Paul has also shown his wisdom, compassion and moral integrity in his transition plan. Rather than be the libertarian purists his followers imagine him to be by saying let's write everybody a check for what they've paid into the entitlement system and end it, he refuses to advocate even slightly cutting such benefits for those who have paid into the system and will be dependent upon it. He wanted to give young people the opportunity to opt out of the program and pay for their non contributions to support seniors by shifting half of the funds saved from the militarism spending departments to pay for the shortfall.

Would that his campaign had seized on this spirit and the specific proposal which modeled how to bring progressives on board even if it needed a slight tweaking in light of political realities and opportunities.

What further "compromise" is really needed? Help those dependent on government assistance to wean themselves off of it. That's real "progress" for everybody.

wrestlingwes_8

05-30-2012, 01:34 PM

pacelli

05-30-2012, 01:40 PM

The only way I say "you're right" is if Ron Paul skips the convention and holds his own convention like he did in 08.

When I maxed out Ron said he was in it to win several states... so I am waiting to see what Dr. Paul has planned for Tampa.

gwax23

05-30-2012, 01:48 PM

yawn

progressiveforpaul

05-30-2012, 02:33 PM

Thanks JMDrake. I appreciate it more coming from you. On number 3.... Notice I did not say he had to tell us who the VP was going to be. Just promise a progressive. his base would have stuck with him and what remains of the moderates would have given him a second look. Combine this with the huge number of progressives he could have gotten on board and you have a winning combination. I think he could have manged a plurality win but probably would have been victim of a cluster vote against him in Tampa. On that particular point of compromise on entitlements. You know that he was basing that on getting an opt out, not just good will. he never was asked (except by me on my diminutive blog) what he would do with the funds he would use to fund the opt out if it failed to pass congress (a sure bet it would not pass). Had he been asked by a journalist of greater stature, he could have said that he would send that money to the states to do with it as they like, he would have got a boat load of state government endorsements along with a load of progressive votes from those longing to do what they expected the federal government to do. it was slight tweak that would have not cost a penny more than what he was already proposing and it would have made a dramatic difference toward victory.

I know you are not going to agree with me on that point but just admit this one thing. a coalition ticket would have gotten him a lot more votes in the general election if he had his and his running mates name on the ballot than if he were on the ballot with another libertarian Republican or otherwise. I know it was long shot but had it been tried you cannot deny that it would have gotten him a huge swath of Obama supporters and he would have lost only a tiny fraction of his libertarian die hard supporters.

I can't believe it. I actually have to +rep "progressivesforpaul". Two out of the three he brought up were arguably mistakes. And yes the keyword here is "arguably".

Point # 1: We came close to winning in Virginia without campaigning. I've talked to people close to the campaign who said we couldn't have won even if we had put in the effort, but there's not way to know that now is there? We did need one definite unqualified "win" to overcome the blackout. We tried to get that in Iowa but didn't quite get it. Which brings us to point # 2.

Point # 2: Yeah, I've heard the arguments as to why the newsletter issue didn't hurt us, and frankly I'm not buying it. At the very least the newsletters were a distraction that hurt momentum. What ended the newsletters as an issue? That wonderful "compassion" ad from RevPAC. (Wish I had had the extra money to donate to RevPAC). Had that ad come out sooner Ron might have been able to do interviews without the race issue coming up in those last two crucial weeks and made it over the top in Iowa. In 2007/2008 it was Alex Jones and someone else who's name escapes me that found the black NAACP district head who was willing to vouch for Dr. Paul. I'm not sure why there wasn't a more concerted effort to get out ahead of this issue in 2012 when everybody knew it was coming up. The RevPAC ad should have been cut and ready to go before it was needed.

Point # 3: Here's where "progressivesforpaul" jumps the shark. Nobody and I mean nobody announces VP picks before clinching the nomination and for obvious reasons. And openly calling for a progressive "coalition" would have killed Ron Paul's chances. That's the simple truth. Besides, who have been the pick? Dennis Kucinich? The guy that couldn't even hold his own seat? (Yeah I know, redistricting hurt him. But he still should have been able to hold it. If he couldn't then how could he win any statewide race let alone a nationwide one?) And the OP contracts himself calling for "compromise on economic issues" when earlier in the post he said:

Paul has also shown his wisdom, compassion and moral integrity in his transition plan. Rather than be the libertarian purists his followers imagine him to be by saying let's write everybody a check for what they've paid into the entitlement system and end it, he refuses to advocate even slightly cutting such benefits for those who have paid into the system and will be dependent upon it. He wanted to give young people the opportunity to opt out of the program and pay for their non contributions to support seniors by shifting half of the funds saved from the militarism spending departments to pay for the shortfall.

Would that his campaign had seized on this spirit and the specific proposal which modeled how to bring progressives on board even if it needed a slight tweaking in light of political realities and opportunities.

What further "compromise" is really needed? Help those dependent on government assistance to wean themselves off of it. That's real "progress" for everybody.

musicmax

05-30-2012, 03:06 PM

1. No foreign policy ad.
2. Never attacked the frontrunner.
3. No plan for dealing with the newsletter issue.

4. In Texas the weekend before Iowa.
5. No plan for dealing with newsletters.
6. Inadequate debate preparation.
7. Poor choice of campaign staff (Benton/Tate/Wead/Hunter <<<<<< Tom Woods).
8. Wishy-washy mixed messages - neither the candidate nor the campaign ever seemed really serious about winning, and unlike 2008 they knew that the support was there to build on.

pcosmar

05-30-2012, 03:18 PM

Will they still be mistakes when the Delegates vote to make him the Republican candidate for President in Tampa?

tttppp

05-30-2012, 03:21 PM

Not calling out the blatant fraud is the biggest mistake the campaign made

After Maine was stolen it should have been obvious they had nothing to lose by growing a pair and calling out the establishment for being the cheating scum they are.

"Ohh but we don't want to hurt Rand's chances later on" BLAH BLAH BLAH, Rand is not Ron and never will be; he's just another DeMint

I agree with that. Also, stating that they were not actively campaigning anymore was a clear mistake. It may have been true, but the only thing announcing it does is allow the media to claim Ron Paul is officially out of the race. They should have seen that one coming.

progressiveforpaul

05-30-2012, 04:22 PM

If they do that, I will admit I was wrong and that no mistakes were made. If it turns out that Paul finishes second in the delegate count and is not nominated, will you admit that I was right/

Will they still be mistakes when the Delegates vote to make him the Republican candidate for President in Tampa?

pcosmar

05-30-2012, 05:03 PM

If they do that, I will admit I was wrong and that no mistakes were made. If it turns out that Paul finishes second in the delegate count and is not nominated, will you admit that I was right/

Probably not,, I don't think some are mistakes,, nor do I think it is in any way relevant.
Ron"s differences with the Powers That Be could not be fixed by pandering to them.

If they could,,this movement would not exist.

jmdrake

05-30-2012, 05:39 PM

Your calculations ignore the large increase of support for Ron Paul in 2011/2012 from rank and file republicans. I know first hand that some people who hated is foreign policy in 2008 either voted for him or gave it serious consideration this time. (My neighbor being one such person). How many of those gains in 2012 would have vanished by announcing a "progressive coalition"? And how many progressives really would have gone for it?

On entitlements, I think an opt out provision could pass in concert with an overall plan to save Social Security. Most people know SS is on target to go broke. People on both sides of the aisle are openly talking about raising payroll taxes, raising the retirement age, means testing etc. A plan to infuse the system with much needed cash saved from rolling back the empire, combined with a promise to reform the system so that younger workers could opt out could definitely pass. The elderly would be thankful that their own retirement was saved. The younger workers, most of whom don't believe SS will be around for them, we jump at the chance to opt out. That's an obvious win/win.

As for the general election, he would have to get past the primary to get their. So really only what would win him the primary would matter unless he was running third party. I think Obama would be toast this time if he was running against a real republican. The economy is in shambles. More and more people, even current Obama supporters, are seeing Obamacare as a sham. And the occupy movement shows that rank and file Americans of all stripes are pissed at the banker bailouts. Yes the occupy movement got co-opted and it ultimately fizzled, but many of those young liberals either knew about the fed or were educated about it by RP supporters during the protests.

Thanks JMDrake. I appreciate it more coming from you. On number 3.... Notice I did not say he had to tell us who the VP was going to be. Just promise a progressive. his base would have stuck with him and what remains of the moderates would have given him a second look. Combine this with the huge number of progressives he could have gotten on board and you have a winning combination. I think he could have manged a plurality win but probably would have been victim of a cluster vote against him in Tampa. On that particular point of compromise on entitlements. You know that he was basing that on getting an opt out, not just good will. he never was asked (except by me on my diminutive blog) what he would do with the funds he would use to fund the opt out if it failed to pass congress (a sure bet it would not pass). Had he been asked by a journalist of greater stature, he could have said that he would send that money to the states to do with it as they like, he would have got a boat load of state government endorsements along with a load of progressive votes from those longing to do what they expected the federal government to do. it was slight tweak that would have not cost a penny more than what he was already proposing and it would have made a dramatic difference toward victory.

I know you are not going to agree with me on that point but just admit this one thing. a coalition ticket would have gotten him a lot more votes in the general election if he had his and his running mates name on the ballot than if he were on the ballot with another libertarian Republican or otherwise. I know it was long shot but had it been tried you cannot deny that it would have gotten him a huge swath of Obama supporters and he would have lost only a tiny fraction of his libertarian die hard supporters.

Anti Federalist

05-30-2012, 05:44 PM

Number one as far as I'm concerned?

Mistakenly believing that freedom actually is popular.

progressiveforpaul

05-30-2012, 08:54 PM

news Flash: Real progressives (and Obama ain't one) are not members of the powers that be.
Probably not,, I don't think some are mistakes,, nor do I think it is in any way relevant.
Ron"s differences with the Powers That Be could not be fixed by pandering to them.

If they could,,this movement would not exist.

pcosmar

05-30-2012, 09:00 PM

news Flash: Real progressives (and Obama ain't one) are not members of the powers that be.

Nother news flash.
Progressives aren't.

progressiveforpaul

05-30-2012, 09:02 PM

His increase in support is impressive but it maxes out at about 15% of the GOP rank-in-file. If progressives cam on board in large numbers do you think Ron Paul would refuse them and if Ron Paul would not refuse them, do you think many of his supporters, whether new or old, would refuse continue supporting him? Progressives obviously have not come on board in large numbers. I attribute that to being out of power for so long and longing for the progressive rhetoric of our president to result in progressive policy. They need a sweetened pot. I haveve tried to suggest some very modest ways to do just that but it has not gotten far so you can rest assured that libertarians will continue to have their abstract debates with progressives for another 4 years as the corporate cronies continue to rape and pillage. That's the price we pay for demanding unconditional ideological surrender as prerequisite for alliance.

I think your optimism with regard to the viability of the opt out is way off. Agree to disagree in that assessment.

Your calculations ignore the large increase of support for Ron Paul in 2011/2012 from rank and file republicans. I know first hand that some people who hated is foreign policy in 2008 either voted for him or gave it serious consideration this time. (My neighbor being one such person). How many of those gains in 2012 would have vanished by announcing a "progressive coalition"? And how many progressives really would have gone for it?

On entitlements, I think an opt out provision could pass in concert with an overall plan to save Social Security. Most people know SS is on target to go broke. People on both sides of the aisle are openly talking about raising payroll taxes, raising the retirement age, means testing etc. A plan to infuse the system with much needed cash saved from rolling back the empire, combined with a promise to reform the system so that younger workers could opt out could definitely pass. The elderly would be thankful that their own retirement was saved. The younger workers, most of whom don't believe SS will be around for them, we jump at the chance to opt out. That's an obvious win/win.

As for the general election, he would have to get past the primary to get their. So really only what would win him the primary would matter unless he was running third party. I think Obama would be toast this time if he was running against a real republican. The economy is in shambles. More and more people, even current Obama supporters, are seeing Obamacare as a sham. And the occupy movement shows that rank and file Americans of all stripes are pissed at the banker bailouts. Yes the occupy movement got co-opted and it ultimately fizzled, but many of those young liberals either knew about the fed or were educated about it by RP supporters during the protests.

Origanalist

05-30-2012, 09:12 PM

A great raft of bullshit. Why would he want to promise a coalition with progressiveswho stand for everything that is despicable?

Nuff said...........

+1

jmdrake

05-30-2012, 09:44 PM

Nobody would have abandon Dr. Paul simply because progressive voters came on board. But people might have if they thought he was pandering to people he disagreed with on economics by making deals to put them on the ticket as VP. That could shake solid Ron Paul supporters and it would definitely shake tepid supporters we've been good at bringing on this go round. People like this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzg2HZtfJ8c&feature=player_embedded

As for the viability of the opt out, I'm curious as to why you think that would be a problem? If I could show you that Social Security would be stronger for those who still wanted it what would be the problem of an opt out? The only reason some people are against it is because the wrongly feel that it would destroy social security.

His increase in support is impressive but it maxes out at about 15% of the GOP rank-in-file. If progressives cam on board in large numbers do you think Ron Paul would refuse them and if Ron Paul would not refuse them, do you think many of his supporters, whether new or old, would refuse continue supporting him? Progressives obviously have not come on board in large numbers. I attribute that to being out of power for so long and longing for the progressive rhetoric of our president to result in progressive policy. They need a sweetened pot. I haveve tried to suggest some very modest ways to do just that but it has not gotten far so you can rest assured that libertarians will continue to have their abstract debates with progressives for another 4 years as the corporate cronies continue to rape and pillage. That's the price we pay for demanding unconditional ideological surrender as prerequisite for alliance.

I think your optimism with regard to the viability of the opt out is way off. Agree to disagree in that assessment.

Xhin

05-31-2012, 05:43 AM

Number one as far as I'm concerned?

Mistakenly believing that freedom actually is popular.

People tend to like freedom for themselves and their own interests; you just have to show how freedom for those they disagree with protects them as well.

I haveve tried to suggest some very modest ways to do just that but it has not gotten far

Your "modest ways" tend to revolve around compromising on key issues. Which defeats the point of having a libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative/whatever movement.

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 06:11 AM

Can you be specific as to what compromises I have suggested that would "defeat the point of having a libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative/whatever movement."

People tend to like freedom for themselves and their own interests; you just have to show how freedom for those they disagree with protects them as well.

Your "modest ways" tend to revolve around compromising on key issues. Which defeats the point of having a libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative/whatever movement.

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 06:44 AM

What in my proposals specifically do you believe would be seen as pandering to progressives? As for this nut job (who wouldn't recognize notice the book of Exodus if it hit him in the face), I have nothing against him being on board the Ron Paul train. I just want to know what among the specific proposals I make would get him off of that train. As for selecting a progressive running mate (which in my mind would be much less important than having a coalition platform that became the central legislative agenda of a Paul administration) I would think that there are very few conservatives who see party affiliation as more important than uniting the country in the cause of eliminating massive federal debt, bringing taxes down to reasonable rates for hard working people and creating jobs for those unemployed who want to work.

As for the opt out. I am against it but I have also proposed a way that it might be supported by progressives and that is to offer it along side a public option for all those who were eligible for opting out. I am fairly confident though that if the opt out were given an up or down vote in the US Senate, it would not pass. (This should be frustrating to you, those 60 Senators neither you nor I will ever have as long as we are uncompromising with one another.) the deal that i believe Ron Paul ought to strike with progressives is to say, "if you give me an up pr down vote on the opt out proposal, i will allow the funds designated to subsidize it go to the states if the opt out is rejected by congress. such a small tweak in his transition plan would not add a dime to Ron Paul's proposed budget but it would generate a tsunamic wave of state legislative endorsements and disenchanted progressives coming on board. The fundamental question is: Are you willing to cling to an all or nothing libertarian economic ideals only position (see my post on the difference between ideals and principles before you make that fatal false equivalent) when making small but principled compromises on economic policy stands a much better chance of getting Paul elected and advancing the libertarian economic agenda beyond where neocons have allowed you to thus far? we progressives are in a similar boat with blue dogs. Don't you think it's time for both of us to get in the same boat for a short journey out of these loan shark infested corporate waters? There's room for fundamentalist hipsters as well. (Pro-life progressives like me can do a lot to call off the liberal cultural war propagandist if we had a good reason to.)

Nobody would have abandon Dr. Paul simply because progressive voters came on board. But people might have if they thought he was pandering to people he disagreed with on economics by making deals to put them on the ticket as VP. That could shake solid Ron Paul supporters and it would definitely shake tepid supporters we've been good at bringing on this go round. People like this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzg2HZtfJ8c&feature=player_embedded

As for the viability of the opt out, I'm curious as to why you think that would be a problem? If I could show you that Social Security would be stronger for those who still wanted it what would be the problem of an opt out? The only reason some people are against it is because the wrongly feel that it would destroy social security.

osan

05-31-2012, 07:02 AM

Nobody would have abandon Dr. Paul simply because progressive voters came on board. But people might have if they thought he was pandering to people he disagreed with on economics by making deals to put them on the ticket as VP. That could shake solid Ron Paul supporters and it would definitely shake tepid supporters we've been good at bringing on this go round. People like this guy.

Bingo. If we are all operating from the same definition of "progressive", any such coalition would put the nails in RP's campaign coffin just as would a coalition with the KKK, only faster. Why not a coalition with the ghosts of Mao and Stalin with Hitler thrown in while we're at it? Progressivism is rank, rotting authoritarianism of the worst sort beyond the most monumental proportions imaginable. It is the penultimate in large, centralized, forced collectivist authoritarian brutality with the face of compassion slap-dashed upon it with the lowest quality paint available by a severely retarded second-grader in a bad mood. It is the very essence of "Protecting and Serving the shit out of you".

While he is at it, Ron might as well go all the way and promise that as president he will embrace and empower NAMBLA and make sure the troops come home for duty bayoneting infants. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Origanalist

05-31-2012, 07:17 AM

Bingo. If we are all operating from the same definition of "progressive", any such coalition would put the nails in RP's campaign coffin just as would a coalition with the KKK, only faster. Why not a coalition with the ghosts of Mao and Stalin with Hitler thrown in while we're at it? Progressivism is rank, rotting authoritarianism of the worst sort beyond the most monumental proportions imaginable. It is the penultimate in large, centralized, forced collectivist authoritarian brutality with the face of compassion slap-dashed upon it with the lowest quality paint available by a severely retarded second-grader in a bad mood. It is the very essence of "Protecting and Serving the shit out of you".

While he is at it, Ron might as well go all the way and promise that as president he will embrace and empower NAMBLA and make sure the troops come home for duty bayoneting infants. In for a penny, in for a pound.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

cheapseats

05-31-2012, 07:19 AM

Bingo...any such coalition would put the nails in RP's campaign coffin just as would a coalition with the KKK, only faster. Why not a coalition with the ghosts of Mao and Stalin with Hitler thrown in while we're at it? Progressivism is rank, rotting authoritarianism of the worst sort beyond the most monumental proportions imaginable. It is the penultimate in large, centralized, forced collectivist authoritarian brutality with the face of compassion slap-dashed upon it with the lowest quality paint available by a severely retarded second-grader in a bad mood. It is the very essence of "Protecting and Serving the shit out of you".

While he is at it, Ron might as well go all the way and promise that as president he will embrace and empower NAMBLA and make sure the troops come home for duty bayoneting infants. In for a penny, in for a pound.

So, too, with hyperbole?

cheapseats

05-31-2012, 07:21 AM

...If we are all operating from the same definition of "progressive"...

That'd be the first thing to clarify.

Per Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive

Definition of PROGRESSIVE

1
a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress
b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities
c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

2
: of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3
: moving forward or onward : advancing

4
a : increasing in extent or severity <a progressive disease>
b : increasing in rate as the base increases <a progressive tax>

5
often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives

6
: of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of

7
: of, relating to, or being a multifocal lens with a gradual transition between focal lengths <progressive bifocals>

8
: or, relating to, or using a method of video scanning (as for television or a computer monitor) in which the horizontal lines of each frame are drawn successively from top to bottom — compare interlaced
— pro·gres·sive·ly adverb
— pro·gres·sive·ness noun

See progressive defined for English-language learners »
See progressive defined for kids »

Examples of PROGRESSIVE
the progressive movements of the hands of a clock
<progressive forms of animal life>

First Known Use of PROGRESSIVE
circa 1612

Related to PROGRESSIVE

Synonyms: developed, evolved, forward, high, higher, improved, late, advanced, refined

Antonyms: backward, low, lower, nonprogressive, primitive, retarded, rude, rudimentary, undeveloped

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 07:43 AM

Osan, I don't know what a progressive ever did to you beyond raising your taxes or regulating your business but this moral equivalency of yours ought to be condemned by everybody on this thread. Beyond your emotionally compromised sense of ethics, the bottom line is, you do not really want Ron Paul to do what is necessary to advance the libertarian agenda, namely, build a winning coalition with progressives so that libertarianism gets advanced rather than snickered at behind your backs by military keynesians with all their free market rhetoric. Stay on the isolated political fringe or remain in bed with neocons and cultural conservatives if you like where those options have gotten you.

Bingo. If we are all operating from the same definition of "progressive", any such coalition would put the nails in RP's campaign coffin just as would a coalition with the KKK, only faster. Why not a coalition with the ghosts of Mao and Stalin with Hitler thrown in while we're at it? Progressivism is rank, rotting authoritarianism of the worst sort beyond the most monumental proportions imaginable. It is the penultimate in large, centralized, forced collectivist authoritarian brutality with the face of compassion slap-dashed upon it with the lowest quality paint available by a severely retarded second-grader in a bad mood. It is the very essence of "Protecting and Serving the shit out of you".

While he is at it, Ron might as well go all the way and promise that as president he will embrace and empower NAMBLA and make sure the troops come home for duty bayoneting infants. In for a penny, in for a pound.

realtonygoodwin

05-31-2012, 07:43 AM

1. Ron didn't run like someone who wanted to win. The campaign was set up to help him win, but he didn't have the fire in the belly to actually campaign the way he needed to if he actually wanted to win. Especially after Iowa and New Hampshire.

2. Too many rallies for supporters, not enough effort to gain new supporters.

3. Newsletter issue handled poorly.

jmdrake

05-31-2012, 08:01 AM

What in my proposals specifically do you believe would be seen as pandering to progressives? As for this nut job (who wouldn't recognize notice the book of Exodus if it hit him in the face), I have nothing against him being on board the Ron Paul train. I just want to know what among the specific proposals I make would get him off of that train.

Having a "progressive" VP candidate who refers to people of faith as "nutjobs" would probably send him elsewhere. In fact it would probably send me elsewhere.

As for selecting a progressive running mate (which in my mind would be much less important than having a coalition platform that became the central legislative agenda of a Paul administration) I would think that there are very few conservatives who see party affiliation as more important than uniting the country in the cause of eliminating massive federal debt, bringing taxes down to reasonable rates for hard working people and creating jobs for those unemployed who want to work.

During the primary "party unity" counts for nothing. You seem incapable of keeping "primary" and "general election" separate. It would be one thing for Ron Paul to clinch the republican nomination and then announce a "unity coalition" or to skip the republican primary altogether and announce a "unity coalition". But I thought you were talking about "mistakes" in trying to win the "republican primary". The only way to avoid losing support during the primary would be to do what Ron Paul actually did which is to appeal to likely republican voters, while putting out enough signals to people on the left that it might be a good idea to crossover and vote for him. Really, he talked about ending the drug war, ending foreign wars, cutting foreign aid (well actually "progressives" like that for some stupid reason) and saving Social Security for those already dependent on it. That should have been enough considering that there was no democratic presidential primary this year. If there was no republican presidential primary and a halfway decent democrat running I'd crossover and vote in that primary. It's just common freaking sense.

As for the opt out. I am against it but I have also proposed a way that it might be supported by progressives and that is to offer it along side a public option for all those who were eligible for opting out. I am fairly confident though that if the opt out were given an up or down vote in the US Senate, it would not pass. (This should be frustrating to you, those 60 Senators neither you nor I will ever have as long as we are uncompromising with one another.) the deal that i believe Ron Paul ought to strike with progressives is to say, "if you give me an up pr down vote on the opt out proposal, i will allow the funds designated to subsidize it go to the states if the opt out is rejected by congress. such a small tweak in his transition plan would not add a dime to Ron Paul's proposed budget but it would generate a tsunamic wave of state legislative endorsements and disenchanted progressives coming on board. The fundamental question is: Are you willing to cling to an all or nothing libertarian economic ideals only position (see my post on the difference between ideals and principles before you make that fatal false equivalent) when making small but principled compromises on economic policy stands a much better chance of getting Paul elected and advancing the libertarian economic agenda beyond where neocons have allowed you to thus far? we progressives are in a similar boat with blue dogs. Don't you think it's time for both of us to get in the same boat for a short journey out of these loan shark infested corporate waters? There's room for fundamentalist hipsters as well. (Pro-life progressives like me can do a lot to call off the liberal cultural war propagandist if we had a good reason to.)

Ummm....you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again. If I could show you a proposal with an opt out provision that strengthened social security for those dependent on it would you not support it? And if not, why not? Just saying "I want some money sent to the states for social programs dammit" is not answering my question. I've engaged in a fair dialog with you and I believe I deserve an answer to my question.

Xhin

05-31-2012, 08:04 AM

Can you be specific as to what compromises I have suggested that would "defeat the point of having a libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative/whatever movement."

If you insist...

Had he been asked by a journalist of greater stature, he could have said that he would send that money to the states to do with it as they like,

A compromise on economic issues

even though i would agree to several policy changes that could put these libertarian goals inot reality while providing funding for progressives to do what they want to do as well.

However that choice is made more complex by the reality that some amount of compromise on economic issues will have to be agreed to.

That means we are both going to have to compromise on economic issues and agree to do so ahead of the primaries,

The basic agreement looks like this: whatever deal we make on reductions in spending over the the term of 2013 through 2016, we need also to agree that half of the savings is used to reduce federal debt while the other half goes to the states in block grants according to the population of each state.

I have pointed out several policy ideas which may not be ideal to either progressives or libertarians but which advance their economic policy agendas simultaneously

I still think it would be preferable for Paul to drop out of the GOP race now and hand his delegates over to Rand Paul at the GOP convention while Ron Paul pursues an independent coalition candidacy.

We need a coalition of generous libertarians and prudent progressives [..to] fully fund the necessary structures, systems and jobs for building a peaceful, green, democratic, productive, prosperous, prudent and generous American economy.

2.) Reforming our tax and tariff systems to increase revenues in ways that are more progressive, less burdensome for the vast majority of Americans, and more consumption oriented. We would urge that the present income tax system be transformed into a progressive consumption tax which exempts at least $25K of annual consumption per person and provides a progressive earned income tax credit voucher card option to replace tax deductions, exemptions, credits, loopholes and their accompanying paperwork.

We also urge a gradual increase in carbon taxes, alcohol, tobacco and other newly legalized drugs and health damaging products and services.

Finally we believe that tariffs on imports should be based on environmental stewardship and justice and on human, civil, labor, and consumer rights. Products and services imported from countries that show hostility or less concern for these standards should be accessed higher tariff rates, while countries with standards comparable in intent and effect to ours should have their tariffs on products and services lowered.

3.) Direct all savings from spending reductions and all revenue gains from tax and tariff reforms equally toward debt reduction and funding of state and local governments.

2.) increased revenue through tax reform that is simple, progressive and consumption oriented

I'm about halfway through your blog entries and posts. I could continue if you'd like.

V3n

05-31-2012, 08:04 AM

I don't think it makes sense to review "mistakes" until the campaign is over.

musicmax

05-31-2012, 08:19 AM

I don't think it makes sense to review "mistakes" until the campaign is over.

Uh, one of the mistakes WAS Bentate declaring the campaign over.

V3n

05-31-2012, 08:44 AM

Uh, one of the mistakes WAS Bentate declaring the campaign over.

Is "Bentate" a mixture of Jesse Benton + John Tate, or something else you read wrong? Assuming it's a mixture, if you read the campaign is over, that's one of your biggest mistakes.

In an e-mail sent on May 15, subject line "Campaign Convention Strategy" from Jesse Benton, it says right near the top "Let me be very clear. Dr. Paul is NOT dropping out or suspending his campaign."

In an e-mail sent on May 20th, subject line "Not Going Away" from John Tate, he says "But the truth is, we're not done yet!"

"Bentate" never declared the campaign over.

John F Kennedy III

05-31-2012, 08:58 AM

How is the OP not banned yet for all these threads?

pcosmar

05-31-2012, 09:01 AM

How is the OP not banned yet for all these threads?

Comic Relief?

Revolution9

05-31-2012, 10:08 AM

I agree with that. Also, stating that they were not actively campaigning anymore was a clear mistake. It may have been true, but the only thing announcing it does is allow the media to claim Ron Paul is officially out of the race. They should have seen that one coming.

Art Of War. Loose lips sink ships. Catch the drift.

Rev9

Xhin

05-31-2012, 10:54 AM

How is the OP not banned yet for all these threads?

He's getting there.

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 11:05 AM

First of all, I am not running for VP and I am sure that whoever did would have be a bit less polemical than I. I am sure the guy is not psychologically insane and I could probably find a great deal of common ground with him after we both got beyond the propaganda barbs.

I am with on your critique of progressives. I jumped on board 15 months ago and have been diligently trying to persuade other progressives to do the same despite some legitimate misgivings we have with Ron Paul. I have concluded that Ron Paul would not get enough on board if he did not do a little tweaking to his campaign and to that one particular issue you want to discuss.

So let me begin by saying, I have a post here about a means for getting you your opt out. The price is a public option. I would be willing to listen to what you have to say about shoring up social security. I have read Paul's solution and it is tenable but unneccessary. We can shore up social security in a number of other ways I am willing to here your proposal but I doubt that it would persuade me to give you the opt out unless you threw in a public option.

Medicare and Medicaid are a different matter. They are in big trouble and I am willing to listen to you on how to solve those problems. I doubt we will see eye to eye. My solution is a hybrid system of universal basic medicare for all supplemented by private catastrophic care with transparent prices for services based on market demands paid for by medicare, private insurance and out of pocket percentage based co-pays. We are probably at an impasse on this subject but give it a whirl. I am always interested in principled compromise. (You do believe that such compromise is possible, don't you?) Sorry if I did not answer sufficiently last time or this time. I am earnestly trying to have an honest and respectful dialogue as well. I will also attempt to tone down the rhetoric going forward. Thanks for your willingness to do the same.

I want money sent to the states for infrastructure, education and clean energy development, not social programs unless you consider work a social program. i am willing to fight for this in my state legislature and to have other people have the right to persuade their state governments as well and if they or you persuade your state government to give tax break to millionaires then so be it. as a progressive think that's a big concession on my part. i know you libertarians feel like you have been shafted all your life by an overreaching government so I know that talk of concession is hard for you but is there anything you would be willing to give up other than dismantling entitlements in order to gain our cooperation?

BTW you happen to be the guy in the video. if you are I want to compliment you on your production (even though i can't stand the content...maybe you can send the message along to him if it's not you.)

Having a "progressive" VP candidate who refers to people of faith as "nutjobs" would probably send him elsewhere. In fact it would probably send me elsewhere.

During the primary "party unity" counts for nothing. You seem incapable of keeping "primary" and "general election" separate. It would be one thing for Ron Paul to clinch the republican nomination and then announce a "unity coalition" or to skip the republican primary altogether and announce a "unity coalition". But I thought you were talking about "mistakes" in trying to win the "republican primary". The only way to avoid losing support during the primary would be to do what Ron Paul actually did which is to appeal to likely republican voters, while putting out enough signals to people on the left that it might be a good idea to crossover and vote for him. Really, he talked about ending the drug war, ending foreign wars, cutting foreign aid (well actually "progressives" like that for some stupid reason) and saving Social Security for those already dependent on it. That should have been enough considering that there was no democratic presidential primary this year. If there was no republican presidential primary and a halfway decent democrat running I'd crossover and vote in that primary. It's just common freaking sense.

Ummm....you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again. If I could show you a proposal with an opt out provision that strengthened social security for those dependent on it would you not support it? And if not, why not? Just saying "I want some money sent to the states for social programs dammit" is not answering my question. I've engaged in a fair dialog with you and I believe I deserve an answer to my question.

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 11:07 AM

Really? How unlibertarian of you! I am a nobody with bunk ideas. I am no threat to you geniuses.

He's getting there.

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 11:08 AM

Really? How unlibertarian of you! I am a nobody with bunk ideas. I am no threat to you geniuses.

How is the OP not banned yet for all these threads?

progressiveforpaul

05-31-2012, 11:13 AM

Sure... by all means ...and maybe you could provide some analysis as to why each of these items would defeat the libertarian movements goals instead of being acceptable trade offs for a lot less taxes, debt, federal demands, etc. along with Ron Paul in the oval office.

If you insist...

I'm about halfway through your blog entries and posts. I could continue if you'd like.

John F Kennedy III

05-31-2012, 11:13 AM

Really? How unlibertarian of you! I am a nobody with bunk ideas. I am no threat to you geniuses.

I'm not a libertarian.

Origanalist

05-31-2012, 11:18 AM

I'm not a libertarian.

(smirk)

jmdrake

05-31-2012, 11:24 AM

First of all, I am not running for VP and I am sure that whoever did would have be a bit less polemical than I. I am sure the guy is not psychologically insane and I could probably find a great deal of common ground with him after we both got beyond the propaganda barbs.

Cool.

I am with on your critique of progressives. I jumped on board 15 months ago and have been diligently trying to persuade other progressives to do the same despite some legitimate misgivings we have with Ron Paul. I have concluded that Ron Paul would not get enough on board if he did not do a little tweaking to his campaign and to that one particular issue you want to discuss.

So let me begin by saying, I have a post here about a means for getting you your opt out. The price is a public option. I would be willing to listen to what you have to say about shoring up social security. I have read Paul's solution and it is tenable but unneccessary. We can shore up social security in a number of other ways I am willing to here your proposal but I doubt that it would persuade me to give you the opt out unless you threw in a public option.

A "public option" for what? Social Security? I thought that was a given for the term "opt out"? If people are allowed to "opt out", as opposed to be forced to opt out, then that implies that some sort of public option must still exist. If all the tweaking you need is for Ron Paul to spell out "allowing an opt out option doesn't mean the program won't continue for those who still can't think of their own retirement plans" then than should be a problem. But if you mean "I won't support opt out for Social Security unless there's a public option for healthcare" then there's no way to bridge that divide.

Medicare and Medicaid are a different matter. They are in big trouble and I am willing to listen to you on how to solve those problems. I doubt we will see eye to eye. My solution is a hybrid system of universal basic medicare for all supplemented by private catastrophic care with transparent prices for services based on market demands paid for by medicare, private insurance and out of pocket percentage based co-pays. We are probably at an impasse on this subject but give it a whirl. I am always interested in principled compromise. (You do believe that such compromise is possible, don't you?) Sorry if I did not answer sufficiently last time or this time. I am earnestly trying to have an honest and respectful dialogue as well. I will also attempt to tone down the rhetoric going forward. Thanks for your willingness to do the same.

I don't agree that the best way to solve the medicare crisis is to expand it. (Universal basic medicare for all). So far I haven't seen a government run insurance program that's solvent and leaves basic freedom in tact. Even Taiwan's program is now going broke, despite the draconian "nanny state" measures they put in place to keep costs down. I think John Mackey had the best ideas for fixing the healthcare crisis.

Please see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

And what did he get for his troubles? What happened as a result of his taking up Obama's challenge to "put something on the table"? A boycott from progressives.

I want money sent to the states for infrastructure, education and clean energy development, not social programs unless you consider work a social program. i am willing to fight for this in my state legislature and to have other people have the right to persuade their state governments as well and if they or you persuade your state government to give tax break to millionaires then so be it. as a progressive think that's a big concession on my part. i know you libertarians feel like you have been shafted all your life by an overreaching government so I know that talk of concession is hard for you but is there anything you would be willing to give up other than dismantling entitlements in order to gain our cooperation?

Money is already sent to states for much of that and a lot of it is wasted. I would rather see the states take a stronger role in their own destinies. Let's take money for police. If state X really needs more police officers than why can't it get its own citizens to agree to raise local taxes for more police officers? I find the transfer of wealth from one state to another, at a time when we're really just stealing money from our great grandkids, troubling. That said, here's what Ron Paul said back in Jan 2012.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d1_1326600109
I would quit bombing bridges overseas and rebuilding them. I would save that money, cut the deficit, and spend some of it on our infrastructure.

So since Ron Paul has already said he would spend some of the money saved on infrastructure, what other compromise are you needing?

Edit: Or is your concern that Ron Paul just didn't talk about this aspect of his plan that much?

BTW you happen to be the guy in the video. if you are I want to compliment you on your production (even though i can't stand the content...maybe you can send the message along to him if it's not you.)

Nope. I strongly disagree with his mischaracterization of Ron Paul not caring about people's spirituality. But Ron Paul isn't running for head of the Church of the U.S. (Thankfully no such church exists). And Rick Santorum's "solutions" require increasing the size of government. Molotov likes Ron Paul because he wants to shrink the size of government, but Molotov doesn't fully understand what that means. Oh and Molotov also is apparently unaware that Rick Santorum voted for funding for Planned Parenthood. :o

Xhin

05-31-2012, 11:47 AM

I have concluded that Ron Paul would not get enough on board if he did not do a little tweaking to his campaign and to that one particular issue you want to discuss.

That "one particular issue" is NON-NEGOTIABLE. If anything, Ron Paul is more likely to side with social conservatives than economic progressives.

So let me begin by saying, I have a post here about a means for getting you your opt out. The price is a public option. I would be willing to listen to what you have to say about shoring up social security.

Oh wait, you think social security is the issue? That's ridiculous. No, the issue with forming a coalition with progressives is the economic picture in general. RP supports decreased spending, you guys support spending on social programs. RP supports getting rid of income tax, you guys want to tax the rich more and install a "consumption tax". RP supports free trade with all nations, you support imposing tariffs based on "bad behavior" overseas. The list goes on and on.

These are not minor issues, these are key issues to the movement. Compromising on them is therefore not worth it.

My solution is a hybrid system of universal basic medicare for all supplemented by private catastrophic care with transparent prices for services based on market demands paid for by medicare, private insurance and out of pocket percentage based co-pays.

Your solution, like many other Leftist solutions to the health care issue, address symptoms rather than root problems.

(You do believe that such compromise is possible, don't you?)

Compromise is definitely possible, provided that key principles are not sacrificed. The hard part with compromise is maintaining everyone's key principles and compromising only on implementation or minor issues. With healthcare for example, we both want the same thing (affordable health care for all), but have two different approaches. The approach of dergulating it is probably too simplistic of a solution, but at least it addresses the root problem -- why healthcare costs are so expensive. If you could come up with a progressive solution to the root problem, then we might be able to find compromise and common ground there.

I am earnestly trying to have an honest and respectful dialogue as well. I will also attempt to tone down the rhetoric going forward.

It generally helps not to call people "nut jobs", especially if you're trying to bring them around to your way of thinking.

Really? How unlibertarian of you! I am a nobody with bunk ideas. I am no threat to you geniuses.

That was a prediction, based on bans in the past. I'm not a mod myself, and I don't agree with censorship of opposing ideas, otherwise I would have banned the anti-semite nationalist and the eco-feminist communist from my site long ago.

progressiveforpaul

06-01-2012, 07:45 AM

I was referring to the health care public option which was a compromise for us progressives in the first place and which quickly fell victim to the insurance lobby (things like this make it hard for me to understand why so many folks here think Obama is a progressive...rhetorically he may be but not in reality). I am not sure why you would oppose a public option for the same age group that Paul wants to have an opt out. We can still do shoring up of medicare while cutting that deal. i am saying we don't have to dip into savings from cuts in military spending in order to shore it up. Same applies to social security. Put the money saved half to debt reduction (either don't spend it or pay down debt quicker) and half to block grants to the states according to population to do as they wish with it as long as they report it publicly. this is a revenue neutral deal (does not add a cent to Paul's proposed budget and does not take away from the debt reduction he proposes.

Enough said on the cocktail guy.

I think that it is a shame that the proposal you mentioned was shut out and so was the single payer and the public option was muffled as well. I think that a high deductible supplemented by HSAs could be worked into a hybrid plan as well. I would be willing to do that for able bodied non retirees as long as you have a 10% copay on the first 1000 and then bump it up to 50% for the next 4000 before you bring it back down to 10% for the next 5K after that, 20% from 10K to 100K and 40% above 100K, cutting all those percentages in half for seniors, veterans and disabled. This would, coupled with real market pricing for services, keep cost down while making sure everyone was insured for basic care and was given the opportunity to buy supplementary and catastrophic care. You could also allow for more insurance companies to get in the mix and for them to be able to sell other insurance products along side of health insurance (sort of a modification of the German method). Interestingly the progressive consumption tax of (google Robert Frank) would make all savings tax free an eliminate the need for HSAs and the bureaucracy that goes along with them.

I know money goes to the states already and there is waste (hence my public reporting requirement for otherwise unconditional block grants); however the states have cut and cut and cut to a point that schools and roads and teachers, etc. are falling apart under the strain.... States that are satisfied with the way their public services are running can give that money out in tax breaks if they like but there are states that want to hire more teachers, repair roads and bridges, create sustainable energy, communication and transportation infrastructure.

Yes Ron Paul has said something about transferring bombing and nation building funds back to American infrastructure. That is good but it has been very little emphasis on how he wants to do it and how and how much he wants to dedicate toward that effort. Perhaps he was waiting for the general election to reveal that but now we see he either did not intend to win the nomination or run as an alternative candidate or he simply cannot when the GOP nomination without a massive influx of progressive supporters, in which case he should have been elaborating on this topic all along.

Cool.

A "public option" for what? Social Security? I thought that was a given for the term "opt out"? If people are allowed to "opt out", as opposed to be forced to opt out, then that implies that some sort of public option must still exist. If all the tweaking you need is for Ron Paul to spell out "allowing an opt out option doesn't mean the program won't continue for those who still can't think of their own retirement plans" then than should be a problem. But if you mean "I won't support opt out for Social Security unless there's a public option for healthcare" then there's no way to bridge that divide.

I don't agree that the best way to solve the medicare crisis is to expand it. (Universal basic medicare for all). So far I haven't seen a government run insurance program that's solvent and leaves basic freedom in tact. Even Taiwan's program is now going broke, despite the draconian "nanny state" measures they put in place to keep costs down. I think John Mackey had the best ideas for fixing the healthcare crisis.

Please see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

And what did he get for his troubles? What happened as a result of his taking up Obama's challenge to "put something on the table"? A boycott from progressives.

Money is already sent to states for much of that and a lot of it is wasted. I would rather see the states take a stronger role in their own destinies. Let's take money for police. If state X really needs more police officers than why can't it get its own citizens to agree to raise local taxes for more police officers? I find the transfer of wealth from one state to another, at a time when we're really just stealing money from our great grandkids, troubling. That said, here's what Ron Paul said back in Jan 2012.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d1_1326600109
I would quit bombing bridges overseas and rebuilding them. I would save that money, cut the deficit, and spend some of it on our infrastructure.

So since Ron Paul has already said he would spend some of the money saved on infrastructure, what other compromise are you needing?

Edit: Or is your concern that Ron Paul just didn't talk about this aspect of his plan that much?

Nope. I strongly disagree with his mischaracterization of Ron Paul not caring about people's spirituality. But Ron Paul isn't running for head of the Church of the U.S. (Thankfully no such church exists). And Rick Santorum's "solutions" require increasing the size of government. Molotov likes Ron Paul because he wants to shrink the size of government, but Molotov doesn't fully understand what that means. Oh and Molotov also is apparently unaware that Rick Santorum voted for funding for Planned Parenthood. :o

progressiveforpaul

06-01-2012, 07:50 AM

Xhin,
Thanks for reading and commenting. I think that I need to make a little bit more clear what I believe is the best policy and what I believe is politically realistic in a coalition platform. Rather than be redundant, check out my answers to JMDrake above. If you see that I have missed something or you have some question or comment that I did not address for you, let me know and I'll try to answer you asap. Thanks again for your desire to do good things.

That "one particular issue" is NON-NEGOTIABLE. If anything, Ron Paul is more likely to side with social conservatives than economic progressives.

Oh wait, you think social security is the issue? That's ridiculous. No, the issue with forming a coalition with progressives is the economic picture in general. RP supports decreased spending, you guys support spending on social programs. RP supports getting rid of income tax, you guys want to tax the rich more and install a "consumption tax". RP supports free trade with all nations, you support imposing tariffs based on "bad behavior" overseas. The list goes on and on.

These are not minor issues, these are key issues to the movement. Compromising on them is therefore not worth it.

Your solution, like many other Leftist solutions to the health care issue, address symptoms rather than root problems.

Compromise is definitely possible, provided that key principles are not sacrificed. The hard part with compromise is maintaining everyone's key principles and compromising only on implementation or minor issues. With healthcare for example, we both want the same thing (affordable health care for all), but have two different approaches. The approach of dergulating it is probably too simplistic of a solution, but at least it addresses the root problem -- why healthcare costs are so expensive. If you could come up with a progressive solution to the root problem, then we might be able to find compromise and common ground there.

It generally helps not to call people "nut jobs", especially if you're trying to bring them around to your way of thinking.

That was a prediction, based on bans in the past. I'm not a mod myself, and I don't agree with censorship of opposing ideas, otherwise I would have banned the anti-semite nationalist and the eco-feminist communist from my site long ago.