Ron Paul Schools Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[goldenequity]

Ron Paul Schools Debbie Wasserman Schultz


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8EebVMDSi0

Time has proven Dr. Ron Paul correct. Insurance prices through the roof, masses of people lost insurance & massive government subs.

[timosman]

2:50 starts the final round.:cool:

[Dr.No.]

2:50 starts the final round.:cool:

He didn't answer the final question...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

He didn't answer the final question...


Here's a question for you. You're from the UK, right? You have three red bars. You keep making contrary posts, seemingly to only be contrary. You don't seem to be interested in learning anything. Why are you here?

[Dr.No.]

Here's a question for you. You're from the UK, right?

No


You have three red bars.

Is this the digital version of argumentum ad populum?


You keep making contrary posts, seemingly to only be contrary.

You make factually devoid posts only to fit your narrative.


You don't seem to be interested in learning anything. Why are you here?

Same for you. Are you just here to have your own ideas parroted back at you?

If you want to know, I used to be a neoconservative during the Bush years who was very sympathetic to RP in regards to economics, but not WRT foreign policy and some other things. As time passed, I became more sympathetic to RP overall, and even worked on his campaign in 2012. That is when I started to see a lot of issues, both with him and the libertarian movement as a whole. Being right is important, and when the predictions and prescriptions being made by libertarian/paleoconservative/right-leaning thinkers haven't worked out, a refinement is needed. I don't see that refinement happening and am trying to do what I can to get it going.

[The Northbreather]

No



Is this the digital version of argumentum ad populum?



You make factually devoid posts only to fit your narrative.



Same for you. Are you just here to have your own ideas parroted back at you?

If you want to know, I used to be a neoconservative during the Bush years who was very sympathetic to RP in regards to economics, but not WRT foreign policy and some other things. As time passed, I became more sympathetic to RP overall, and even worked on his campaign in 2012. That is when I started to see a lot of issues, both with him and the libertarian movement as a whole. Being right is important, and when the predictions and prescriptions being made by libertarian/paleoconservative/right-leaning thinkers haven't worked out, a refinement is needed. I don't see that refinement happening and am trying to do what I can to get it going.

What are the issues and what are your refinements?

[Dr.No.]

What are the issues and what are your refinements?

Long and desultory post to follow, that will probably receive a lot of negative reps. But I'm going to say it anyways.

Firstly, there are issues I have with Ron/Rand themselves. Firstly, Ron is an intelligent guy. Rand is energetic, but he’s not as sharp. Maybe Donald Trump has proven me wrong, but intelligence is required to be president. By that criteria, going forwards, Rand isn’t the guy for the job.

Secondly, you have to be tough. You need to have strength. Ron is a nice, polite, staid, genteel, weak man. How many meetings I would sit in where he would whinge about how the media was being unfair to him (sometimes true, sometimes not)! I wanted to slap him and tell him not to be a whiny little bitch. What is the media supposed to do? Roll out the red carpet? Bow and anoint him the president with no pressure at all? He had this view that Obama and Romney faced no media pressure, despite all the bullshit both guys had to fight, and even the valid criticisms that they managed. They didn’t whine like little children. You need to answer the questions, push back, and be strong. You need to control the narrative and create a strong message. Otherwise, you aren’t going to win a damn thing. “Restore America Now” was his slogan, if you can even remember that. Weak-ass shit. Rand has a bit more strength in him, but it isn’t nearly enough.

The campaign was also so poorly conducted. Perhaps that is true of all campaigns, but I doubt it. Mathematical mistakes, spelling errors in policy proposals, no cohesive messaging…just ugly. If I am a voter, and you put out a budget proposal with a mathematical mistake (never mind his insane tax-growth predictions) while simultaneously presenting yourself as the only one who understands reality, I’m not going to vote for you.

When it comes to issues, the libertarian/Ron Paul/paleocon/right-wing seems immune to facts and reality. From moderates like Ben Shapiro and Tomas Sowell and crazies like Alex Jones, dire predictions were made about the Obama presidency and policy. Libertarian policies have been adopted around the world and even in several states. From internment camps to death panels, predictions of hyperinflation, assurances of commodity shortages, claims of massive bread lines and unemployment in the 20s/30s, to a Dow Jones in the 2000s, to a currency/debt crises, to a Chinese takeover, to crowding out, and on and on and on.

The libertarians have been excellent on their foreign policy predictions. That is why I became one and worked for them. But to the same extent, they’ve been wrong on the economy and many areas of economic policy. There hasn’t been any change in policy or rhetoric. They just ignore the facts or live in a fantasy world where they were only wrong due to some massive conspiracy.

Everything comes down to ideology. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in climate change because if he did, he’d have to modify his strong anti-government stance. He ignores the 14th amendment because if he did, he’d have to modify his federalism. He rejects evolution because if he did, he’d have to change his religious beliefs. I’ve never gotten a straight answer from him on why government subsidies are good for him (GI Bill paid for his education) and bad for everyone else (I’m fairly certain the reason he didn’t cut Pell grants in his budget proposal is that he didn’t want to be called a hypocrite). Everyone does it, leftists, as well, but we need to be better than that. We need perspicacity instead of intransigence.

I’ve outlined it elsewhere (in a vituperative fashion), but Ron Paul and many libertarians have been so grossly erroneous with their economic predictions because they fundamentally don’t understand how our monetary and financial system works. They make assumptions about human behavior and perfect markets that just do not exist in the real world. Ron Paul believes that except for the presence of taxes, we live in a Miller-Modigliani world, which is a laughable concept. I’ve listened to Austrians like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, and Robert Murphy over the years. I’ve listened to classical/neoclassical guys like Robert Barro. I’ve listened to monetarists and market monetarists like Cochrane, Sowell, and other Friedmanites. All of these guys share much when it comes to economics. Yet if I had to grade their economic predictions, I’d give them something between a D- to an F. Outside of maybe Scott Sumner (D, D+) and maybe someone like Bryan Caplan (D+), that’s the grade I’d give to most conventionally-thought-of-as right-of-center of economists. It is the same grade I’d give to far-left economists (although I’d give Varoufakis a D/D-, maybe). Other players who are vilified on this forum, like Bernanke, Krugman, and Yellen I’d give something between a C- to a C+; even if I have disagreements in principles and just don’t like those guys, that’s my assessment of their predictive record. Being right is important, and not being partisan to “your guys” is important. Between 2007 and 2009, and even to this day, you’ll see libertarians grouse about how David Frum, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton would get venerated for their foreign policy advice despite their terrible record on it. Why can’t we apply the same standard to the libertarian economists who have gotten little right since 2008?

Moving on to foreign policy. I still think Ron Paul and the libertarians are mostly correct. But there are still issues. Ron Paul believes radical Islam has 0% to do with terrorism. When pushed, he’ll say maybe 5%. That is ridiculous. Yes, our occupation and intervention is a major problem. But some if it is on them. Their beliefs, their fundamentalism, their radicalism. I know a lot of libertarians share RP’s belief. RP and other libertarians are critical of any intervention the US has ever made, simply on an ideological basis. The occupation of Germany, the Marshall plan, our occupation of Korea and Japan were great for us and great for them. I am against any more interventions because I think the intent is bad and the executions are horrible. But I don’t try and alter history to make all our foreign policy endeavors horrible.

There are more areas of disagreement, some, where I used to agree and changed my mind, and others where I’ve always thought differently, but I will leave it here for now.

[Krugminator2]

I’ve outlined it elsewhere (in a vituperative fashion), but Ron Paul and many libertarians have been so grossly erroneous with their economic predictions because they fundamentally don’t understand how our monetary and financial system works. They make assumptions about human behavior and perfect markets that just do not exist in the real world. Ron Paul believes that except for the presence of taxes, we live in a Miller-Modigliani world, which is a laughable concept. I’ve listened to Austrians like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, and Robert Murphy over the years. I’ve listened to classical/neoclassical guys like Robert Barro. I’ve listened to monetarists and market monetarists like Cochrane, Sowell, and other Friedmanites. All of these guys share much when it comes to economics. Yet if I had to grade their economic predictions, I’d give them something between a D- to an F. Outside of maybe Scott Sumner (D, D+) and maybe someone like Bryan Caplan (D+), that’s the grade I’d give to most conventionally-thought-of-as right-of-center of economists. It is the same grade I’d give to far-left economists (although I’d give Varoufakis a D/D-, maybe). Other players who are vilified on this forum, like Bernanke, Krugman, and Yellen I’d give something between a C- to a C+; even if I have disagreements in principles and just don’t like those guys, that’s my assessment of their predictive record. Being right is important, and not being partisan to “your guys” is important. Between 2007 and 2009, and even to this day, you’ll see libertarians grouse about how David Frum, Bill Kristol, and John Bolton would get venerated for their foreign policy advice despite their terrible record on it. Why can’t we apply the same standard to the libertarian economists who have gotten little right since 2008?



I don't consider Austrian economic positions representative of libertarianism. Austrian economists have gotten little right in predictions. That is true. The constant doomsday about spending, inflation, and market crashes is something that I hate.

That said, Paul Krugman has gotten almost everything wrong about everything. He is the worst of the worst. He should get an F-. When Bush was President, he said Bush's deficits would cause rampant inflation and bond yields to shoot through the roof. Wrong about everything. This could have been written by Peter Schiff. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/a-fiscal-train-wreck.html

He was wrong about the Sequester. He though it would cause a double dip recession. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/krugman-sequester-of-fools.html

Krugman was wrong about long term unemployment benefits when they were cut. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/unemployment_in.html

Krugman is just as prone to doomsdaying as anyone else when it suits him. Here is from the night of the election. He said the stock market made a permanent all time high and would never recover. This is what he said " If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never."
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/election-night-2016/paul-krugman-the-economic-fallout

I would give Sumner and Bernanke high marks, probably an A-. They basically have the same views and policy prescriptions. Sowell is more of a philosopher. Not sure Cochrane is a market monetarist.

[dannno]

He didn't answer the final question...

That's because the final question was fake fucking news. How did you not recognize that?

The interviewer was asking Ron why the the insurance companies had spent more to lobby this bill than any other lobby group on any other bill in history - then he added "to defeat it" and asked why they would spend so much money to defeat it if they wanted it as Ron Paul had claimed.

Sorry dude, that is fake news.

They spent the money to influence it, NOT to defeat it. They were pretending to be against it as a psychological manipulation against the public to get them to support it because nobody likes the insurance industry. So they figure if they pretend to be against it, then people will support it and they can get it passed. They spent a lot of money writing stuff into it that benefited them. They wanted it to pass just like Ron Paul said and he is 100% accurate on that.

Just like the big energy corporations want global warming legislation. But you probably don't believe that either. That's ok, that's why your bar is red though, you don't read between the lines and figure out what is really going on. You push the deep state narrative.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

No

I mean you're not originally from the US. Right? You're from the UK or Australia?





...I became more sympathetic to RP overall, and even worked on his campaign in 2012...

Like what?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The libertarians have been excellent on their foreign policy predictions. That is why I became one and worked for them. But to the same extent, they’ve been wrong on the economy and many areas of economic policy.


Oh baloney. This is just progressive. The progressives who are against foreign interventions anyway.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You don't seem to be interested in learning anything. Why are you here?









Same for you. Are you just here to have your own ideas parroted back at you?

.









No, not the same for me. I have discussed many times why I am here. You do nothing but go out of your way to make contrary posts. Practically 100%







You make factually devoid posts only to fit your narrative.

More baloney. I am among a minority of posters/posts in a thread that cites primary and/or authoritative research. You don't.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Ron is a nice, polite, staid, genteel, weak man. How many meetings I would sit in where he [Ron Paul] would whinge about how the media was being unfair to him (sometimes true, sometimes not)! I wanted to slap him and tell him not to be a whiny little bitch.




You sat in meetings with Ron Paul? I'll bet a few people here would like some details on that.

You must have been quite some hotshot to make these statements. I'm sure Mr Paul would have loved to been schooled with all your progressive and metrosexual positions on political and social issues.

[Lamp]

I wanted to slap him and tell him not to be a whiny little bitch.

Thats going too far.

[Dr.No.]

I don't consider Austrian economic positions representative of libertarianism. Austrian economists have gotten little right in predictions. That is true. The constant doomsday about spending, inflation, and market crashes is something that I hate.

IDK, man. Ron Paul is a major figurehead in the libertarian movement and is a hardcore Austrian. You mention you like Sumner, and he isn’t a libertarian. A large part of the libertarian movement is an-caps and those close to it, guys who worship Austrian Economics. You can’t ignore them!


That said, Paul Krugman has gotten almost everything wrong about everything. He is the worst of the worst. He should get an F-. When Bush was President, he said Bush's deficits would cause rampant inflation and bond yields to shoot through the roof. Wrong about everything. This could have been written by Peter Schiff. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/a-fiscal-train-wreck.html

Krugman suffers from the fact that he makes so many predictions, he’s bound to be wrong on some of them. I still wouldn’t give him a passing grade (maybe barely), but he called the Euro, the Eurozone, the weakness of Obama, the effect of the Bush tax cuts, the housing bubble, the size of the stimulus, etc. I like his modeling/predicting of the ERP. He called the increase in buybacks and dividends as well. He called the slowdown in production, the crash in 2001 (though not Japan), and the commodity problems of the 2000s. I hate defending him, but he has a mixed record.


He was wrong about the Sequester. He though it would cause a double dip recession. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/krugman-sequester-of-fools.html

I don’t remember the exact words “double dip” being used. I do think he said something like 1 million jobs would be lost. However, the study he was quoting IIRC assumed you would see an 110 billion reduction in outlays (vs the 40 billion that actually happened) and was including a 200 billion in increased tax revenue.


Krugman was wrong about long term unemployment benefits when they were cut. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/01/unemployment_in.html

Eh? I’m not sure you linked the right piece. That article is a somewhat pedantic criticism of Krugman’s push for UI extension while having before talked about the disincentivizing effects of UI. Those are not mutually exclusive positions; if UI can increase demand to the extent that it outweighs the perverse incentives, you have a net gain. The article (and Murphy Roberts) ignore that latter part. It comes off as disingenuous or just stupid. Stop making me defend Krugman! You should point to his asinine predictions about the internet or Obamacare.


I would give Sumner and Bernanke high marks, probably an A-. They basically have the same views and policy prescriptions.

Something I abhor about Sumner is that he’s very, very careful not to make outright predictions and is very careful with his language. Unlike many others, he’s never called any bubble or any bull market; he always rolls with the market. There are guys like Damodaran who are guilty of the same, but at least those guys do some impressive modeling and make good predictions on individual sectors/stocks. But his dumb ideas about the expectations fairy have been destroyed elsewhere, and I don’t think he has sufficiently answered criticisms of EMH. He used to support monetary aggregates. I remember how he thought the biotech industry was sunk in 2007, a prediction that has turned out to be completely untrue (maybe where he learned to not make predictions). Some of his growth predictions haven’t come true. He was fairly critical of the stimulus plan, and was correct that it didn’t meet predictions…but even his predictions about growth with/without stimulus were too generous. He, of course, blames the central bank; why wouldn’t other predictors get the same benefit? Some of his hypothesis on how rational expectations are ludicrous when you think about it. On top of that, I have issues with his strange views on nominal debt contracts. His general waifishness annoys me. Perhaps I will elevate his grade to a C or C-, but no more.

Don’t get me started on Bernanke.


Sowell is more of a philosopher. Not sure Cochrane is a market monetarist.

In any case, they both make numerous (mostly wrong) predictions, though Cochrane seems to have wised up.

[Dr.No.]

That's because the final question was fake $#@!ing news. How did you not recognize that?

The interviewer was asking Ron why the the insurance companies had spent more to lobby this bill than any other lobby group on any other bill in history - then he added "to defeat it" and asked why they would spend so much money to defeat it if they wanted it as Ron Paul had claimed.

Sorry dude, that is fake news.

They spent the money to influence it, NOT to defeat it. They were pretending to be against it as a psychological manipulation against the public to get them to support it because nobody likes the insurance industry. So they figure if they pretend to be against it, then people will support it and they can get it passed. They spent a lot of money writing stuff into it that benefited them. They wanted it to pass just like Ron Paul said and he is 100% accurate on that.


Then why didn't he say just that? It seems like a lot of insurance companies hated Obamacare. There was a lot of demagoguing against the issue. Occam's razor, me thinks.


Oh baloney. This is just progressive. The progressives who are against foreign interventions anyway.

You do this a lot...throw a label or name around as if it that is a sufficient argument. I agree with progressives on gay rights and civil liberties, but I want much lower taxes, am critical of Islam, am far less critical of the banking system, am pro-life, and am very centerish on immigration and gun rights.


No, not the same for me. I have discussed many times why I am here. You do nothing but go out of your way to make contrary posts. Practically 100%.

More baloney. I am among a minority of posters/posts in a thread that cites primary and/or authoritative research. You don't.

If you say so. Doesn't look I'm going to be able to dissuade you on this. I've posted plenty of research in other threads, but I think you'll never be convinced.



You sat in meetings with Ron Paul? I'll bet a few people here would like some details on that.

You must have been quite some hotshot to make these statements. I'm sure Mr Paul would have loved to been schooled with all your progressive and metrosexual positions on political and social issues.

"Metrosexual"? Ha,ha. Well, back then, I had much more agreement with him on many things. A lot of my issues with that campaign are in hindsight; in the moment we were papering cracks. He was actually very open to being disagreed with and very much accepted debate (which I think is a symptom of his kindness), but frustratingly intransigent. If God came down to Earth and told Ron he was wrong about something, Ron would still politely disagree.

[oyarde]

Insurance companies wrote obummercare and the only people that read any of it in washington were a few dem staffers who had the insurance companies write it ,

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Ha,ha.


You still did not answer my questions:

1. Are you originally from the UK or Australia?

2. What exactly did you do campaigning for Ron Paul?

3. What kind of meetings did you attend with Ron Paul?

[Dr.No.]

You still did not answer my questions:

1. Are you originally from the UK or Australia?

Why are you so obsessed with national origin or identity? I'm not sure where you got this idea, and I am not sure why it matters.


What exactly did you do campaigning for Ron Paul?

That I will keep to myself, so as not to burn bridges and/or reveal my real identity


What kind of meetings did you attend with Ron Paul?

The various kinds of meetings that are necessary for the running of a campaign. Strategic/educational/messaging/prep work.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why are you so obsessed with national origin or identity?

Obsessed?! I asked you your country of origin one time. You missed answering it so I asked it again.


I'm not sure where you got this idea,

You use alternate English spellings, such as behaviour or colour.


and I am not sure why it matters.

If it does not matter, then why don't you just answer?




That I will keep to myself, so as not to burn bridges and/or reveal my real identity



The various kinds of meetings that are necessary for the running of a campaign. Strategic/educational/messaging/prep work.


LOL; so you made it all up. That's what I figured.

[Working Poor]

I would say that by the look on her face that she thinks she wiped the floor with Ron and also the commentator seems to own stock in AIG.
All obamacqare really is a bailout for AIG financed by the people.