Why a Ron Paul blog? All other threads are closed, simply put. No disrespect to the OP's of other closed threads, but it's time to discuss his ideas a little more in context. Whether you agree or disagree with the man, or just don't know enough, it has become quite the spectacle. Not only his candidacy, but the exposure and the media war being waged around it to varying degrees of success.
"After Ron Paul's decisive victory in the Value Voters straw poll in which his nearest competitor was eleven percentage points behind, Faux News had this running headline on the screen to announce the results: "Herman Cain Comes in Second in Value Voters Straw Poll." The anchorette did manage to mention that Ron Paul "also did well" without mentioning any details about the vote totals."
"ABC News online announced that the "Values Voters reluctantly supported Mitt Romney" even though Ron Paul won the straw poll there with 732 votes compared to only 88 votes for Romney. I'm not including a link because I don't want to send any traffic to these lying connivers."
Both of these posts, courtesy of the LewRockwell Blog at Lew Rockwell by Thomas DiLorenzo. Jon Stewart has also commented on the situation a few weeks back.
For those that had not seen that particular clip before, it can be quite hilarious. Most Jon Stewart is, as he probably deserves his own thread. I have seen this rationalized as his viewpoints are unworthy, or he's un-american, or it's crazy old Ron. It is crazy old Ron. Here's some of his views on various issues.
1.) Global War/Terrorism I list this first, as it the area as an elected president could influence most even on his first day in office. Ron is ardently anti-war. He opposes almost all the current conflicts, despite originally voting for action against those responsible for 9/11. His newest campaign add 'Imagine' best reflects his current view on current foreign policy. Possibly the greatest anti-war add of the modern age.
2.) War on Drugs. From Mexico, to Colombia, all the way to Afghanistan. A global epidemic, both the use and abuse. At what point did we lose, and who did we lose to? Very few politicians have anything more than a static response to this problem. Not Ron.First, from 2008, then more recently.
3.) Rule of Law. Some of his most controversial positions stem from his view that the Constitution is the 800lb Gorrilla in the room, not big pharma. Over and over again he has voted against(Dr.NO) or spoken out against agencies or laws he views to be in violation of the Constitution. It would probably be easier to list the agencies he does not have issue with, than vice-versa.
4.) Civil Liberties. Absolutely no other candidate talks about this issue at length, with any degree of consistancy. Usually reservered as a platform for democratic candidates, one shouldn't expect much from the rest of the Republicans on this subject. If you believe in cradle to the grave, Ron Paul is not your guy. He advocates personal responsibility and choices, not absolutes, and safety nets.
5.)The Economy/MonetaryPolicy. Another favorite area for his critics. It's a good thing such a wack-job as Paul doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, and is out of touch with reality. His economic failures(sarcasm) include, but are not limited by the following video.
For now I'd like to stop with these 5 points as a example and hear your thoughts. If you think he's wrong, say so with some tact. He's batshit insane is hardly going to advance your position. Thanks. Yes, I support him. I apologize if I butchered some english in the process. Youtube for ease of access.
Ron in the 10/11 Debate
Update: Ron is expected to release his economic plan Monday. Fan or not, it should be a howl to watch jaws drop. Here's a preview of what to expect.
It includes eliminating five governmental departments, cutting one trillion dollars in spending and Dr. Paul would take a presidential salary of just $39, 336, which is the median salary of the American worker (The President’s base salary is normally $400,000).
The five departments that would be abolished are the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior.
He wont win an election for presidency, so why vote for him? Also, I'm not sure if the marriage of conservativism and libertarianism is actually a good one..., they seem alike but it feelsl ike fitting a square peg in a rounded-corner-square hole
On October 12 2011 08:37 Catch]22 wrote: He wont win an election for presidency, so why vote for him? Also, I'm not sure if the marriage of conservativism and libertarianism is actually a good one..., they seem alike but it feelsl ike fitting a square peg in a rounded-corner-square hole
On October 12 2011 08:37 Catch]22 wrote: He wont win an election for presidency, so why vote for him? Also, I'm not sure if the marriage of conservativism and libertarianism is actually a good one..., they seem alike but it feelsl ike fitting a square peg in a rounded-corner-square hole
Honest to god, are you trolling?
No, but I might be less informed than you, please enlighten me
You should vote for him if that's what you want to do. You should vote for Romney or Perry if that floats your boat. I wouldn't vote for a politician I know is just towing the party line, doesn't believe what he is saying, or more importantly isn't going to go back on 99% of his campaign promises.
Bush- the compasionate- conservative, no nation building. Obama -change you can believe in. Bring the boys home, Guantan, whistleblower protection.
Not sure which of the most recent electees was a bigger farce. Do you have a opinion on any of the policies, or just Nay-saing on the way thru Catch?
On October 12 2011 08:37 Catch]22 wrote: He wont win an election for presidency, so why vote for him? Also, I'm not sure if the marriage of conservativism and libertarianism is actually a good one..., they seem alike but it feelsl ike fitting a square peg in a rounded-corner-square hole
Why would you say that? Because the mainstream media that is owned and controlled by the same people that there are thousands of protests now say so?
That is a pretty weird thing to say, considering that pretty much everything is possible and there are millions of supporters already for Ron Paul.
All the polls I've seen have ron paul in first place. the yahoo polls, msnbc polls, fox polls, cnn polls, etc... The only polls he doesn't win is those small 300 people phone calls that are made by the same mainstream media who say he can't win.
But the question everyone should be asking themselves is why does the mainstream media ignore or marginalize him? Isn't it a sign that the current establishment of corrupt politicians are afraid that he will end their fraud and corruption?
I'm actually a very Statist kinda guy, I believe in Big Government, and that we need rules and regulations to ensure the wellbeing of our society.
At the same time, I do agree with alot of the views about how what I do in my own home is my business, and Ron Paul does have the most sound politics of all the republicans, but if I want to move my country towards republicanism, I'd consider which candidate was to be the most likely to get elected in the actual election, would Ron Paul stand as big of a chance agains Obama as Romney? I actually doubt that.
I do agree that ignoring him seems like a very wierd idea, but I do believe it has something to do with him being less conservative than the rest, I thought Libertarians had their own party in the US, or does the two-party system rule out anything like that?
On October 12 2011 09:07 Catch]22 wrote: I'd consider which candidate was to be the most likely to get elected in the actual election, would Ron Paul stand as big of a chance agains Obama as Romney? I actually doubt that.
I do agree that ignoring him seems like a very wierd idea, but I do believe it has something to do with him being less conservative than the rest, I thought Libertarians had their own party in the US, or does the two-party system rule out anything like that?
I think Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama, actually. No Republican voters are going to vote for Obama anyway, and Ron Paul will pick up tons of votes from independents and Democrats who are pissed off at Obama for escalating the wars, escalating the unconstitutional detention and assassination of US citizens, escalating the war on drugs, further eroding our civil rights, etc. There have been a few mock polls of Ron Paul against Obama that have gone in favor of Paul, and I expect that he'd be even more popular with more media recognition if he can win the Republican primary.
We do have a Libertarian party, but our system of elections has been set up by the Republicans and Democrats to all but prevent third party participation. The actual Libertarian party is also too extreme for most people's liking.
On October 12 2011 09:07 Catch]22 wrote: I'd consider which candidate was to be the most likely to get elected in the actual election, would Ron Paul stand as big of a chance agains Obama as Romney? I actually doubt that.
I do agree that ignoring him seems like a very wierd idea, but I do believe it has something to do with him being less conservative than the rest, I thought Libertarians had their own party in the US, or does the two-party system rule out anything like that?
I think Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama, actually. No Republican voters are going to vote for Obama anyway, and Ron Paul will pick up tons of votes from independents and Democrats who are pissed off at Obama for escalating the wars, escalating the unconstitutional detention and assassination of US citizens, escalating the war on drugs, further eroding our civil rights, etc. There have been a few mock polls of Ron Paul against Obama that have gone in favor of Paul, and I expect that he'd be even more popular with more media recognition if he can win the Republican primary.
We do have a Libertarian party, but our system of elections has been set up by the Republicans and Democrats to all but prevent third party participation. The actual Libertarian party is also too extreme for most people's liking.
I doubt it. Obama's been so right-centre lately I'm sure moderate republicans will vote for him over the batshit insane candidates they have in their own party. And what is a mock poll? Isn't that a poll? Or is that making fun of a poll...or joking about voting in a poll...or voting to joke in a poll... or polling jokers who vote...
Ron Paul's worship of the Constitution, a document which greatly expanded the power of the federal government, which was agreed to only by a minority of a minority of individuals who lived over 200 years ago, and somehow purports to still bind us, is antithetical to libertarianism.
Ron Paul is simply a "states' rights" conservative who, to paraphrase Karl Hess, would prefer to oppress people at a more effective level.
On October 12 2011 09:20 Bill Murray wrote: I'd say it's a wasted vote, but I've voted for Nader twice.
Neither one of them will win. You'd think Nader being from Connecticut would help, but it won't.
If any of the guys like this ever actually won, they wouldn't be able to get anything done.
As someone who voted for Nader, I would be more inclined to think you would be admirable of his positions. Ralph Nader himself has been calling for an alliance.
I'm more interested in his positions, than pandering for votes honestly. You can vote your heart, but with bias reporting, I presented the clips that best represented the ideas, as well as the candidate.
On October 12 2011 09:46 Mindcrime wrote: Ron Paul's worship of the Constitution, a document which greatly expanded the power of the federal government, which was agreed to only by a minority of a minority of individuals who lived over 200 years ago, and somehow purports to still bind us, is antithetical to libertarianism.
Ron Paul is simply a "states' rights" conservative who, to paraphrase Karl Hess, would prefer to oppress people at a more effective level.
The Constitution defines some basic human rights, and gives the federal government the right to directly protect those rights of its citizens. And it provides a court system for people to prove that they have been disenfranchised.
It's not antithetical to libertarianism it's a model of implementation for libertarianism.
I used to be a big Ron Paul supporter. Over the years, my political stance has become much more moderate (fiscally, at least), and I would be uncomfortable with his extreme cuts to government departments and services (whether or not his reforms could actually be implemented even if he achieved the presidency is another story). I still like a lot of his ideas and I admire his dedication to his principles, even if he might not get my vote (were I American).
The real problem here is the blatant media bias. Even perennial or radical candidates deserve their fair coverage if they slay in the polls.
On October 12 2011 12:24 3clipse wrote: I used to be a big Ron Paul supporter. Over the years, my political stance has become much more moderate (fiscally, at least), and I would be uncomfortable with his extreme cuts to government departments and services (whether or not his reforms could actually be implemented even if he achieved the presidency is another story). I still like a lot of his ideas and I admire his dedication to his principles, even if he might not get my vote (were I American).
The real problem here is the blatant media bias. Even perennial or radical candidates deserve their fair coverage if they slay in the polls.
This. Except that I personally need to add that I fear Ron Paul. My undying support for him stopped when I sat back and realized the shitstorm that would occur if he achieved presidency.
Well if he actually does what he says he would if he got into the office, it wouldn't be that big of a change.
He'd use executive powers to move all the troops back home, but he doesn't believe in using executive orders anyways... I'm pretty sure that he even said that he wouldn't use executive order to get rid of the FED, because it's not his jurisdiction.
He would simply just veto everything that ever comes out of Congress that doesn't agree with his incredibly fiscally conservative views... I think he's more of a "spread the idea" guy than "we need drastic change", or "bold plan" (lol Cain) guy. I mean he's like 80 years old and is gonna drop dead soon probably, if he's on a power trip, he's definitely hiding it well.
I think the Federal government not doing ANYTHING would actually be good for a change.
When I hear Santorum talking shit about wanting war with our biggest creditor, Romney talking like Dick Cheaney Jr(American Exceptionalism,the next 100 years), Cain's 5-5-5 deal, I cannot help but wonder when the standard got so low!
SantorumIf You want a shitstorm, go ahead and sign the currency bill into law...and pray. Pray just a little more that China's response is something along the lines of Day9/Sen is a jerk. Oh youuu guyss!!!, you crazy americans!!. If China took it as more than just a insult, or more than just a shot across the bow. It's not China that's going to feel the pain. This alone means Santorum should never ever even be allowed within spitting distance of any chinese official he might offend, lest the rest of America be held responsible for his verbal frothy-ness.
Romney Anyone seen his foreign policy team? Bush 2012 is the mantra. Personally would have thought Chertoff would have crawled into a hole with his body-scanner nestegg, alas good villains never die.
Cain What else can you say. Hardly different from the others. Just trying to get his elbows in on the Neo-Con dominated platform. Bankers delight.
To Mindcrime: Would you have been more comfortable with the Articles of Confederation? It seems on it's head a dumb question, but there is always the chance you are a 'Freeman on the Land' type.
To Kiarip: I keep saying that(about the idea, the message) to people, but that's not change you can believe in. Ron Paul's influence, even pending utter defeat in the primaries, is just starting. You can laugh all you want. In a 100 years, after Romney and Co are done looting the globe and making it safe..for themselves, maybe the republicans will get some morals back and call themselves Paulians. We the 3%.
EPT
