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%.
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
Most conservatives, view libertarians as a direct threat. Ron Paul taking over Bill Buckley's job I guess.
I'm referring to Buckley's shaping of the conservative party to include more liberal views. Big government, large budget, standing armies as long as the cold war continues. DeepElemBlues will chime into how Ron Paul would be nothing without Buckley. Upon further review, he is right. Without the deformation of old republican values into what most call Neoconservatism, Ron Paul wouldn't have much to complain about. He would also assert i have 0 credibility because i dare assert a unoriginal thought such as Buckley was the greatest establishment-troll of the post war era.
I'm hardly the first to think it. I guess the Cato institute negates the John T Birch society in that reguard. The Book in Question, Mr Blues is Bill Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment.
"From the 1960s to today, conservative Americans have been led astray by William F. Buckley, Jr. and other false conservatives who want to interject the U.S. government into almost every aspect of our lives. This blockbuster hardback presents a critical examination of Buckley's life and career, including his promotion of liberal causes. Don't let yourself be fooled! By understanding how the liberal establishment embraced Buckley and his so-called conservatism, you can avoid the traps laid down by similar false conservatives."
Opinions vary, I'm pretty damn conservative.
EDIT: 4 chan? Maybe your talking about Boxxy. If you only watch one video in my list. Make it Jon Stewart or Armed Chinese Troops.
On October 12 2011 21:05 zeru wrote: So i googled around a little and found out that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution and denies it. Also something about him wanting to bring back the gold standard. He's either crazy, stupid, or both, I'm not sure which. Funny that this isnt included in OP :p
He was most definitely a joke on 4chan in 2008, whether the whole internet loves Ron Paul thing started there because people thought they actually like him I don't know.
A politician like that would be laughed at by everyone here in sweden.
I strictly browse /v/ nowadays but /b/ likes Ron Paul a lot and always has because he doesn't censor the Internet and is against anti piracy laws.
On October 12 2011 21:05 zeru wrote: So i googled around a little and found out that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution and denies it. Also something about him wanting to bring back the gold standard. He's either crazy, stupid, or both, I'm not sure which. Funny that this isnt included in OP :p
He was most definitely a joke on 4chan in 2008, whether the whole internet loves Ron Paul thing started there because people thought they actually like him I don't know.
A politician like that would be laughed at by everyone here in sweden.
I left out religeon, because here in Amercia it is your right to believe what you want to believe. My views on a higher power, or religeon, because that is what the evolution coversation always seperates down to is a deep personal belief, such as not for me to criticize one, without criticizing all. It should almost never be a deciding factor, in a election, in a economic crisis that hasn't been witnessed since 4 chan's inventor was wiping poop on his face in the 70's, and before that since the 20's and 30's. It's not a focal point for me personally.
The gold standard. Yes, he has advocated it. He has criticized the decision to ever leave it. Does he currently advocate a full gold standard... no. He wants the currency backed by silver and gold because the constition wisely required it. He also wants the United States Treasury dept to stop delegating it's coin and print responsibility, back to itself. Not to private banking firms, and political retiree/swapee's(Cain, Perry,Romney,Christie) the candidate's they fund.
Assuming you were American, and the banks went insolvent, and the FDIC, already broke, incapable of covering anymore than a fractional reserve bank could cover it's deposits. You had just a few thousand worthless federal reserve notes in your account. At the time when the dollar is being threatened to lose it's status as the reserve currency, a looming trade war with china. The Credit rating already devalued by S+P. You would be hard pressed to find a neighbor, who would support a fiat currency, backed by nothing tangible, not even some horrible retarded derivitives package, let alone in the hands of someone who will profit from your misery.
If Ron Paul gets elected I'm becoming an organic chemist, and I am going to get a license to sell hallucinogens to live my greatest fantasy. That is why I am going to vote for him.
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.
Boy I don't wish you lived in North Korea where they don't have a constitution and get beat up to death by talking bad about their government because they've destroyed their country and life.
If you despise the constitution so much why not abolish it and see what happens. I can tell you what will happen, because its happened thousands of times through history, it happens total tyranny with death camps and life of suffering.
The reason why USA has been so successful and rich is because when Europe had kings and dictators and fought all these wars the USA had freedom and peace. When things started going bad it had the revolution and now its come to oppose everything it stood for and is going down, probably destroying half the world with it as its so connected through the fake monetary systems and being the reserve currency of the world.
I nabbed a little video on fiat currency, for those not familiar with the concept. With the EU sov debt crisis on the front pages today.
.
This crisis(global), OWS, EU Sovereign debt crisis, and central banks globally just keep on going printing and propping till it's all bled out. Tom Woods wrote a book called Meltdown on the subject matter. China having it's currency not pegged to the dollar would be a hypocrital position to take.
If you were the single largest holder of Treasury debt, and the U.S. largest creditor. Ensuring a fair exchange rate would be common sense, especially with policy of currency expansion here.
Much simpler.. making sure the chinese people are not shipping off goods, they will never get fair value for, paid for at all. Unpopular, yea, tell me about it! Greek debt is getting bounced around currently. Who's gonna pay?
On October 12 2011 21:05 zeru wrote: So i googled around a little and found out that Ron Paul doesn't accept the theory of evolution and denies it. Also something about him wanting to bring back the gold standard. He's either crazy, stupid, or both, I'm not sure which. Funny that this isnt included in OP :p
He was most definitely a joke on 4chan in 2008, whether the whole internet loves Ron Paul thing started there because people thought they actually like him I don't know.
A politician like that would be laughed at by everyone here in sweden.
I left out religeon, because here in Amercia it is your right to believe what you want to believe. My views on a higher power, or religeon, because that is what the evolution coversation always seperates down to is a deep personal belief, such as not for me to criticize one, without criticizing all. It should almost never be a deciding factor, in a election, in a economic crisis that hasn't been witnessed since 4 chan's inventor was wiping poop on his face in the 70's, and before that since the 20's and 30's. It's not a focal point for me personally.
The gold standard. Yes, he has advocated it. He has criticized the decision to ever leave it. Does he currently advocate a full gold standard... no. He wants the currency backed by silver and gold because the constition wisely required it. He also wants the United States Treasury dept to stop delegating it's coin and print responsibility, back to itself. Not to private banking firms, and political retiree/swapee's(Cain, Perry,Romney,Christie) the candidate's they fund.
Assuming you were American, and the banks went insolvent, and the FDIC, already broke, incapable of covering anymore than a fractional reserve bank could cover it's deposits. You had just a few thousand worthless federal reserve notes in your account. At the time when the dollar is being threatened to lose it's status as the reserve currency, a looming trade war with china. The Credit rating already devalued by S+P. You would be hard pressed to find a neighbor, who would support a fiat currency, backed by nothing tangible, not even some horrible retarded derivitives package, let alone in the hands of someone who will profit from your misery.
Sure he can believe what he wants to. But denying evolution is like denying gravity. I don't understand how you can take someone like that seriously as a politician, not having the capability to think logically is a huge flaw for someone who wants to run as president. I seriously hope he's just saying he doesn't believe in it to get more votes from a wider area, else it would be messed up.
edit; im not saying an important man can't have faith, but having faith and not denying evolution isnt mutually exclusive.
He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
On October 13 2011 04:45 Kiarip wrote: He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
The thought of that is absolutely terrifying.
Human nutrition 101 brought to you by McDonalds! "I'm lovin' it"
On October 13 2011 04:45 Kiarip wrote: He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
The thought of that is absolutely terrifying.
Human nutrition 101 brought to you by McDonalds! "I'm lovin' it"
Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
But to address that, transparency can be forced via individuals' inquiries, because being sponsored by something to do them a favor is fraud if you don't state that ahead of time, at which point who is really going to want to go to school that has McDonalds as its sponsor for nutrition classes?
On October 13 2011 04:45 Kiarip wrote: He doesn't deny evolution... what are you even saying? I'm pretty sure that he simply defended the rights of schools to teach whatever they want to teach, which would be a basic principle of free market education.
The thought of that is absolutely terrifying.
Human nutrition 101 brought to you by McDonalds! "I'm lovin' it"
Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
But to address that, transparency can be forced via individuals' inquiries, because being sponsored by something to do them a favor is fraud if you don't state that ahead of time, at which point who is really going to want to go to school that has McDonalds as its sponsor for nutrition classes?
the thing is, the fact that people want creationism taught in schools means they arent safe to choose education for themselves, for the same reason you dont let mentally handicapped people choose for themselves. some things are just opinions, and some things are just wrong.
Man I really want to like Ron Paul, and I do for many things but some of his views are just too crazy/out there for me. Still I think I'd rather have him as pres than any other rep candidate, congress would really mellow out/relax what he's capable of implementing.
Calling Alan Greenspan terrible does make me like him just a little bit more than I did though.
Ron Paul simply cannot be in office. He hates the government, yet he wants to be elected as the highest government official in the country. That in itself is contradictory.
Guess we interpret things the way we want to. "There is no proof for either side" lol...
There you have it. I guess Ron is more like myself in some ways.
If that's your issue. then I would recommend you look into Huntsman. Romney is too coy on the subject to get a good answer.
Sadly this election cycle will feature little of substance on this subject, just typical argumentative, slanted statements. If anyone else thinks I picked poor issues, it's fair to say so. I just cannot see it being any more productive than race commentary instead of 9-9-9!!! Plenty to chat about there!
On October 12 2011 09:36 rel wrote: So many people saying, "Oh I'd vote for him, but it's a wasted vote." If all those people actually voted for him he might have a chance lol....
Not being trolling, but do the votes from Guam count towards the general election?
On October 12 2011 09:36 rel wrote: So many people saying, "Oh I'd vote for him, but it's a wasted vote." If all those people actually voted for him he might have a chance lol....
Not being trolling, but do the votes from Guam count towards the general election?
No they do not. U.S. Citizens residing there are not allowed to vote either.
On October 13 2011 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Ron Paul simply cannot be in office. He hates the government, yet he wants to be elected as the highest government official in the country. That in itself is contradictory.
He is a segregationist. Simple as that.
Not it isn't contradictory, he wants to become head to stop it from being the self-destructive government it is today. That is why everyone is so scared of him; people think these problems will just so away if we just keep electing status-quo candidates like Bush and Obama.
I was intrigued with what I heard about Obama's anti-war leanings, but none of that came to effect. What? We have less troops there? We still have many MANY people over there in the sandbox.
Not sure where that segregationist comment came from.
On October 13 2011 06:25 Sufficiency wrote: Ron Paul simply cannot be in office. He hates the government, yet he wants to be elected as the highest government official in the country. That in itself is contradictory.
He is a segregationist. Simple as that.
That's simply not true.
He doesn't like how big the government has grown, but he's not an anarchist.
To be honest the country is just not working, It's not like whatever the voters are doing actually matters anyways. Even if he got into office, I doubt he would be able to change much if he wasn't assassinated or corrupted somehow. There is just too much bullshit wrong that is all piled over and over itself for the last 100 years or whatever it would take at least 4 or 5 presidencies with all the people's support and no outside interferences to actually make all his ideals work.
I do believe they could work (or at least work better than what we have now), but the fact of the matter is that it's the system that sucks, not the politicians. Imho, Our best case scenario with Paul would to be that it causes so much controversy that we have some huge revolution and possibly a civil war and then come out better off in 5-10 years.
I don't vote and I'm probably more educated in government bullshit than most of the voters of this country, and I know that I don't know shit.
Probably best if people just switch countries or something.
On October 13 2011 05:04 Kiarip wrote: Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
We're talking about 7 years olds here you realize. LOL the right.
I actually really like a lot of what he was saying in those videos despite generally being more Democrat and, with my first chance to vote in a presedential election this 2012, see myself voting Obama (Ron Paul probably won't get the nomination so I won't have to make a tough choice or anything.). Don't like how he wants to just have individual states make all the decisions, but I like that he realizes it's dumb to have marijuana, and even more hardcore drugs be so rigorously combated.
Also, I like that he's anti-war. Though I can't say I (or anyone really) knows what the best thing to do is with the mess we are involved in the Middle East. Pulling out seems like it would be good, but I just don't know if that would cause the sort of "oh no the bad people will take over then" that I seem to hear concerns about.
edit: Just when I'm kinda liking the guy I see above he doesn't accept the "theory" of evolution. He was a doctor...
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 know very little about politics. But the idea that Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama does make some sense. Republicans would still all vote for him over Obama, and like you say, he's someone Democrats/Independents would consider.
Ron Paul is the only republican I would vote for over Obama. I hate Romney with a passion, every time that guy speaks I can't help but feel like I'm being lied to or something.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Well, that's status quo for republicans, isn't it? Yet he's pretty much the only candidate that doesn't want to use the federal government to stuff his religious views down my throat. +1 for that.
He's fine with the local government stuffing their religious views down my throat, but I have a lot more influence as an individual on local gov than I do on a national scale.
That being said, I would like to see this crazy idea that evolution isn't true.... to be a little bit more damning. Why is it okay that most republican candidates do not seem to believe in evolution? This should be considered insane. As it is Ron Paul is just a normal candidate on that front.
On October 13 2011 13:16 LuckyFool wrote: Ron Paul is the only republican I would vote for over Obama. I hate Romney with a passion, every time that guy speaks I can't help but feel like I'm being lied to or something.
I like Chris Christie. But he's not nuts enough for the base, nor running.
On October 13 2011 09:37 SpoR wrote: Probably best if people just switch countries or something.
Probably won't help you. Any country worth switching to isn't easy to immigrate to. And most countries are going to be affected by this global crisis, too.
I can't watch YouTube, but in the last general election I voted for Ron Paul, and I've seen/thought about a lot of these issues. Unlike a lot of people who are willing to fight to the death to say that their position is 100% informed, first and foremost I would admit that I cut corners when it comes to choosing which politician I want. I estimate and then go with that; I don't research to death every issue... So please take my opinions with a grain of salt and believe me when I say that I would like to be shown I am wrong.
On October 12 2011 08:32 BioNova wrote: 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.
Even if some of his views are crazy, I voted for him because I thought if he was elected we would see some drastic change in the U.S.'s seemingly crazy amount of spending on weapons and massive military presence in the world. It seems like we are constantly attacking all the time, and most people are unaware of this, and that this kind of stuff has become even more crazy from Bush onwards. Someone who takes a radical stance on this would be great, as Ron seems to.
For me it's quite simple. No illegal wars. No unnecessary wars. That seems to be what he's saying, and in the last election everyone else was being a pussy or an asshole about this issue. War should be what we look at most carefully. It's really depressing that people will kind of ignore the "We're killing/maiming a lot of people over in (blah blah) for (why???)" issue so that their pet economic or "moral" belief can be represented in a politician. It's like if five people were trapped in the elevator, and you had to vote who the leader would be, and only one of them doesn't advocate constant knife fights or something, but nobody really thinks that issue is important, everybody is worried about who opposes gay marriage or who will end affirmative action or help people pay slightly less taxes or get more jobs supposedly. Really depressing and ludicrous.
So this made me like Paul as a candidate, because other people were not really as serious about this most serious issue as they should be (talking about the previous general election).
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.
This is an issue where I have an open mind about too. The status quo is ridiculous, and I'm willing to accept all kinds of radical attempts to change it, whether it's a "less government" approach or a "better government" approach, I would be really happy to just have _something_ besides a politician who ignores the issue completely. Prisons and jails are a huge issue in every way for many states, not to mention what's simply right and wrong, and our drug policy seems to simply hurt a lot of people who don't deserve it, not to mention, in my opinion, stop a lot of people from getting high. I'm pro-getting high. And where people go astray, I think we should look at what we can do to help this issue. The police/jail/prison thing isn't working as-is, clearly.
So again, this alone would make Paul a cool president. Maybe I want something crazy and drastic to happen, but I think most voters have felt that way a long time too.
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.
I don't think we should object to wanting to clean up how we use our laws and make them consistent and transparent. If we really want something to be law it should be done the legal way, not weird ways. A lot of the ways the government works now seem really messed up. This doesn't seem crazy at all. It can be done in a safe way...
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.
I'm okay with big government, so in some ways Ron Paul's not perfect for me. But I would take the so-so with the good, and sometimes a radical "no-government" experiment would at least beat the status quo. A president who wants the president to stop breaking the law against its citizens and other countries, I can deal with that.
I kind of think of it this way. I might not want a libertarian congress or judiciary. But for President, the most abused office in history? It would be cool to have a President who looks to restore some "balance of powers" and "rule of law" to the office, who thinks before we go to war we have to have the congress have some say.
I wouldn't agree with all of his opinions in this area (maybe I like judicial review more than him?) but I also wouldn't expect him to come out with a bunch of weird mandates as a President. He would seek to stop things that are blatantly illegal according to our own laws--but not go running around making up new stuff just because of his opinions. He'd be "limited" right?
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.
This is probably the area where I'm the most insecure. I tend to believe these "wackjob" presentations about how the power structure behind printing money is really fucked and how if the government took back this power we would stop getting toyed with by these shady conspiracy things. But I guess a lot of smart people say this is crazy and the more conventional economic thinking is actually right. I would like to read some stuff convincing me of that I guess.
Barring a change in what I've been convinced of, I would like to see a president do something radical with the printing and non-printing of our money, a kind of war on banks if you will.
So on these five points I would like a president that has some of these kinds of views on these issues, even if he isn't perfect. I think these issues are worth a tradeoff, whereas the kinds of things typical candidates argue over really aren't.
On October 13 2011 06:20 Logo wrote: Man I really want to like Ron Paul, and I do for many things but some of his views are just too crazy/out there for me. Still I think I'd rather have him as pres than any other rep candidate, congress would really mellow out/relax what he's capable of implementing.
Calling Alan Greenspan terrible does make me like him just a little bit more than I did though.
Look man, I get where you are coming from, but the point is you don't have any other choice!
Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich are all establishment candidates. They are all part of the corrupt system.
Michelle Bachman doesn't have a clue what is going on and supports the wars.
All of the candidates except Ron Paul support the patriot act, TSA act, endless wars and secret arrest.
To tell you the truth you have the choice between dictatorial corrupt government that works for the big banks and military industrial complex with any of the candidates or Ron Paul who at least will try and get rid of all the corruption and federal government power and give it back to the people.
He also doesn't want the federal government to have all these powers, but the states can still do whatever they want, and the federal government will basically serve to protect the peoples rights and freedoms from government itself in his case the states.
The problem with conspiracy theory/conspiracy fact, is recognizing the difference.
Darwin suggested(coming out of sleep, no google) specific details of conditions that would disprove his theory. One was finding a complex cells that could not function correctly if even one part was missing, take out the transistor on a radio, it no longer works. Might look for that, but i have a story I'd like to get out for informative/discussion purposes. The disclaimer here is a am a current agnostic.
I agree with the sentiment that in this election, America does not just choose for itself, it chooses for us all. Romney's foriegn policy in a nutshell, nail down the leash on the Middle East, and focus on Latin America. Economic Development in Latin America. Drugs in Latin America ....Stop me if you've heard this before.
It's almost Irony that brings the stories together.Going to finish my reading, get coffee and get er figured out.
Edit: So here's my mashup. I mentioned this name in Wall Street thread but no one caught on(go figure). Shit's moving fast in that thread.
I wanted to bring a name in from out of the cold. With Occupy Wall Street shifting gears, the wars burning on in 3 to 7 countries at a time, and some of the candidates looking for more. People are angry. Democrats point to republicans, and vice-versa. What is all about? Money and power silly. A lot of people when they criticize the system like to point to great speechess or moments in time when conditions were clear indicators of the problems we faced. I've found them to be slightly comforting at times myself. Usually, you have the a certain few speeches that seem to still apply or just 'fit' the situation. Kennedy on the American Press, Eisenhower warned us before him. They were not alone either. In 1933, something happened that I personally believe mirrors in may ways what is the present. I'm referring to the 'alleged' Buisness Plot. Never heard of it? Good. You have? Great!.
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye", was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. By the end of his career he had received 16 medals, five of which were for heroism. He is one of 19 people to twice receive the Medal of Honor, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In addition to his military achievements, he served as the Director of Public Safety in Philadelphia for two years and was an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism. In his 1935 book War is a Racket, he described the workings of the military-industrial complex and, after retiring from service, became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.
In 1934 he was involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists had approached him to lead a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt. The individuals that were involved denied the existence of a plot, and the media ridiculed the allegations. The final report of the committee stated that there was evidence that such a plot existed, but no charges were ever filed. The opinion of most historians is that while planning for a coup was not very advanced, wild schemes were discussed.
Butler continued his speaking engagements in an extended tour but in June 1940 checked himself into a naval hospital, dying a few weeks later from what was believed to be cancer. He was buried at Oaklands Cemetery in West Chester, Pennsylvania; his home has been maintained as a memorial and contains memorabilia collected during his various career.
In November 1934, Butler alleged the existence of a political conspiracy of Wall Street interests to overthrow President Roosevelt, a series of allegations that came to be known in the media as the Business Plot.[53][54] A special committee of the House of Representatives headed by Representatives John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York, who was later alleged to have been a paid agent of the NKVD,[55] heard his testimony in secret.[56] The McCormack-Dickstein committee was a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
In November 1934, Butler told the committee that a group of businessmen, saying they were backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by Gerald P. MacGuire, a bond salesman with Grayson M–P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, a former official with the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator. Butler said MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved, including Johnson, said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[56]
In its report, the committee stated that it was unable to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire, which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports.[57] No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, although most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[58][59][60][61] The news media initially dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".[62] When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee "purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true" and "... also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated".[63]
The McCormack-Dickstein Committee confirmed some of Butler's accusations in its final report. "In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
Eh Let's see. Gonna post this, so you guys can check it out, there is Tons more on the subject.
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
In another often cited quote from the book Butler says: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
EDIT:Was reading Matt Tabbi's pontential list of demands for OccupyWS today and found a reference to Standard Oil and Roosevelts Trust Busting.
Monopolies. Taibbi wants to break up monopolies and presumably he would use the power of the federal government to do so. In fact, this is reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt's "trust busting." Famously, John D. Rockefeller's great company, Standard Oil, was broken up a result. fun stuff!
What's whack is when it stares you in the face, and you ignore it. Domestic abuse, child abuse, much easier to picture yourself in a situation where it's easier to look away. It's not your problem right? This is a uncompartmentalized disaster. Eric Margolis commented on it the other day.
Operation Enduring Freedom – the dreadfully misnamed ten-year US occupation of Afghanistan – has turned into Operation Enduring Misery.
After ten years of military and civil operations costing at least $450 billion, over 1,600 dead and 15,000 seriously wounded soldiers, the US has achieved none of its strategic or political goals. As for Afghanistan, it has suffered untold civilian casualties, villages shattered by US bombing, night raids by death squads, over two million refugees and a 30-year civil war.
At a time when 44 million Americans subsist on government food stamps and lack the kind of medical care common to other developed nations, each US soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million per annum. CIA employs 80,000 mercenaries there, cost unknown. The Pentagon spends a staggering $20.2 billion annually air conditioning troop quarters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Source
It's kinda like Vietnam basted in Great Depression, on the scale of WW2. This time they have Banshees!!!
On October 12 2011 09:36 rel wrote: So many people saying, "Oh I'd vote for him, but it's a wasted vote." If all those people actually voted for him he might have a chance lol....
No he wouldn't.
You have to get the mainstream vote to actually elect someone, not the relatively small demographic that is the internet forum.
I think Ron Paul is great to add new conversations that might otherwise not be there. He is doesn't tiptoe around subjects nearly as much as everyone else. He tells you what he thinks and sticks to his principles.
Although this is why I like him it is also why he isn't a good politician in how we are doing things today. It's all about image and how you come across. He is an old squirrely looking guy who isn't afraid to tell you what he thinks even if he knows you don't want to hear it.
On October 13 2011 05:04 Kiarip wrote: Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
We're talking about 7 years olds here you realize. LOL the right.
who picks what school a 7 year old goes to?
I think it's his parents who are considerably older than 7 years old =O
On October 14 2011 02:35 AirbladeOrange wrote: I think Ron Paul is great to add new conversations that might otherwise not be there. He is doesn't tiptoe around subjects nearly as much as everyone else. He tells you what he thinks and sticks to his principles.
Although this is why I like him it is also why he isn't a good politician in how we are doing things today. It's all about image and how you come across. He is an old squirrely looking guy who isn't afraid to tell you what he thinks even if he knows you don't want to hear it.
Well, for him personally, it appears to be over. He is not seeking re-election in Congress, to focus on this campaign. Without Ron on the stage, why even ask questions? LOL
^ Skip to 1:25... That about sums it up. Not a single bill of a Paul west wing would pass a house vote, most wouldn't even get past committee... "Approach it constitutionally, approach it on the principles of liberty." LOL. So a body of government that time and time again has granted Keynesian measures of enormous proportion to save the jobs and savings of its constituents would all of a sudden embrace a radical paradigm shift to laissez faire capitalism? With the promise of long term health for the economy at the expense of short term self-induced '7 years of famine'?
I'm sorry that your of the mind 'Their Keynesian, can't beat em, should join em.'
I'd like you to point out if you care, how stimulus, especially deficit spending, is going to help short term. As soon as your done, my answer is Peter Schiff testifying before the Jobs committee. He'll explain how your right, then how your wrong. Maybe he's wrong. Don't feel bad, the video has a Keysnian in it as well.
Cut regulations, cease stimulus, raise interest rates, allow correction. Bring home the military, take military savings, funnel into social services, not the Fed picking corrupt institutions to prop up.
You chose to misunderstand me. I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, i'm stating the facts.
It's not realistic to run for president on the GOP ticket when only 29% of republican voters favor defense cuts (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf). This number may go up a bit when weighed against a tax increase but it will never reach the fifty-percent mark.
Without drastic cuts in the defense budget, you would have to cut so deep into social security and medicare&medicaid that no democratic congressman would vote to pass. Meanwhile the entire senior citizen voter base would be alienated.
I don't understand why the internet chooses to champion a guy with a legislative agenda that would achieve nothing in terms of actual legislation - every single bill would be blocked by congress.
On October 14 2011 08:39 Thrill wrote: You chose to misunderstand me. I'm not saying anyone is wrong here, i'm stating the facts.
It's not realistic to run for president on the GOP ticket when only 29% of republican voters favor defense cuts (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf). This number may go up a bit when weighed against a tax increase but it will never reach the fifty-percent mark.
Without drastic cuts in the defense budget, you would have to cut so deep into social security and medicare&medicaid that no democratic congressman would vote to pass. Meanwhile the entire senior citizen voter base would be alienated.
I don't understand why the internet chooses to champion a guy with a legislative agenda that would achieve nothing in terms of actual legislation - every single bill would be blocked by congress.
If the correlation were so easy to reach between the % of Rep voters who favor cuts, like you say , Mr Paul wouldn't get military support. He recieves more donations from military than any other candidate. That's also reality. Bad policy has almost assured pain for both sides of the coin.
The internet and Mr Paul. I choose the look at the legislation problem as a bonus to skeptical voters. At least you know he's shooting straight. I could trod on for a looong time shredding Bush, then Obama, on the subject of disenfranchised voters. The both betrayed their base , what they campaigned on, and what they were, are in both cases...fibbers
Ron Paul seems like the most honest, consistent, and intelligent man in American politics. Even people who consider him too extreme are now beginning to like him simply due to his integrity. The man always speaks his mind plainly and tells us the facts, whether or not they're pleasant to hear. Would be amazing to see him win the Republican nomination, but I won't get my hopes up.
^ Skip to 1:25... That about sums it up. Not a single bill of a Paul west wing would pass a house vote, most wouldn't even get past committee... "Approach it constitutionally, approach it on the principles of liberty." LOL. So a body of government that time and time again has granted Keynesian measures of enormous proportion to save the jobs and savings of its constituents would all of a sudden embrace a radical paradigm shift to laissez faire capitalism? With the promise of long term health for the economy at the expense of short term self-induced '7 years of famine'?
at least he could consistently veto retarded congress spending hikes for 4 years in a row, that's something
edit: and by something I mean something better than what pretty much all other candidates would get done
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.
please enlighten me on this, how so would this shitstorm occur, i feel as though he is the one person who could avoid the largest shitstorm in america's history...the one that makes me want to defect to ANYWHERE that isnt america
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.
please enlighten me on this, how so would this shitstorm occur, i feel as though he is the one person who could avoid the largest shitstorm in america's history...the one that makes me want to defect to ANYWHERE that isnt america
I know what he means by that. Ron Paul has integrity, he is startlingly stubborn, consistent, and bold. He will change the entire political landscape of America if he's voted into office. I mean his $1 trillion dollar budget plan alone is pretty radical, let's face it. It's going to involve complete military withdrawl from the world, it's going to cut out most foreign aid, and it may involve cutting out what many people believe to be crucial government institutions such as the department of commerce, the agricultural department and the department of education. He of course believes in Austrian economics, a school of thought that is also considered radical by mainstream economists since they have a penchant for throwing out mathematical and statistical modelling. He wants to transition out of medicare and medicaid (Continuing the program for those people who are too dependent on it to opt out, while offering younger healthier people alternatives) and plans on cutting out a lot of entitlement programs. He's not just rearranging the chairs in a room, he's demolishing the entire building and rebuilding from the ground up.
For better or for worse Ron Paul would change America because he sticks to his convictions.
Small problem though....Zero of his bills would pass in congress. Either Ron Paul's policies will have to get tweaked or Congress itself will have to get tweaked (But to be fair, the tea party has already had some impact on that)
I come from a pretty hardcore Democrat family, but I really like a lot of the things Ron Paul says. Maybe some of the things he says and thinks are pretty radical, but be honest, the country is already in a ton of trouble, and if big changes don't happen soon, then we are screwed. A few things I like about Paul is that he wants to take away our military presence in foreign lands. We should just defend our boarders, and stay out of other countries. I also don't think we should be aiding other countries. Sure, other places are really struggling, but we have our own problems that we need to fix. I don't want my tax dollars going outside of the U.S. I want that money to stay here and benefit myself and others here who need it. I also like his view on giving states more power, and the federal government less power. From my understanding, the federal government is supposed to give minimum requirements for certain laws, then the states can do as they please as long as it remains in the guidelines. Now, I think the federal government has all the say, and the states have very little. It is easier to influence state officials than federal officials. Another thing I like is his thoughts on the war on drugs. We shouldn't be spending all this money on telling people what they can and cannot do. I do not condone anyone using drugs, and don't myself, but let's face it, if people want to do something, they are going to do it. Whether it is legal or not, people can get drugs. So we may as well save all that money and use it elsewhere instead of spending it on something that really isn't helping.
Theres other points too, but those are the bigger ones. I really don't know a whole lot about how the government works, but I have some basic understanding, and I really think that if we continue on the path we are going on now, then I don't want to see what the next 5, 10, 20 years is going to bring. We need a drastic change, and quite frankly, Ron Paul is the only one with enough balls to do something like this.
Each time I hear new things about Ron Paul, I have to reread everything about him to find out what people don't like about him. One thing I noticed just walking around campus is that there are a number of college kids who are showing Ron Paul support.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is doing a great job of attracting the younger voters. Will I vote for him? Well I would need to look into his platform a little bit more, but I like what he says much more than any other candidate.
Is it telling of integrity to fill a bill with pork barrel spending, vote no on said bill, and still profit when it passes? If so, vote for Ron Paul! Seriously wake up people, the man is just as hypocritical as any. It's incredible driving through Ron Paul's district in and around Galveston, the lines of the 14th Texas district are quite distinct, as urban sprawl and low income housing turns magically into expensive civil upkeep, top of the line government buildings, and immaculate roads. Why the difference? Oh yeah, Ron Paul is a king of pork barrel spending. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html is a biased article no doubt, but it gives a good overview of why Ron Paul is just as bad if not worse than other politicians. Open your eyes people.
I just found this new ad that Ron Paul has. It is hilarious:
Edit: I'm also reading that blog that the poster above me recommended. It is not as convincing as I thought it would be. The things I don't like about Paul are the pro life stance and his strong religious views. I felt that the blog was trying too hard to make little faults appear to be big ones.
On December 10 2011 00:01 farvacola wrote: Is it telling of integrity to fill a bill with pork barrel spending, vote no on said bill, and still profit when it passes? If so, vote for Ron Paul! Seriously wake up people, the man is just as hypocritical as any. It's incredible driving through Ron Paul's district in and around Galveston, the lines of the 14th Texas district are quite distinct, as urban sprawl and low income housing turns magically into expensive civil upkeep, top of the line government buildings, and immaculate roads. Why the difference? Oh yeah, Ron Paul is a king of pork barrel spending. http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html is a biased article no doubt, but it gives a good overview of why Ron Paul is just as bad if not worse than other politicians. Open your eyes people.
I dunno, he takes his job pretty seriously. He puts what his district wants in the bill because he is supposed to represent them. He votes no on it because he took an oath to follow the constitution. Can't put too much blame on him when if others voted like him, it wouldn't go through.
On December 09 2011 22:55 Darkalbino wrote: Just going to bump this by saying, if Ron Paul gets in, I'll move to the USA.
If liberal gets into office in Australia, I'm moving to Sweden.
Please don't tell me you think Labor is doing a good job... lol just lol.I will never vote Labor because of that insane internet filter they tried to bring in.
Anyway i like Ron Paul , i've been signed up to the ron paul forums since 2007 and have donated to the forums and a couple of grassroots (non-official) programs.Obviously if i was living in the US i would also donate to the official campaign.
I recently got familiar with Ron Paul's ideas, and for the good of everyone I certainly hope that he wins. How can anybody rationally think that invading these countries is going to solve issues, It didn't solve them in the past and always hurt the invaded countries in the long run, more than it protects america. While the government of America has bases all over the world invading the personal security of individuals all over the world, they try to seem like the good guys in every situation, when everyone know's they're just fucking with people to try and make money.
This is my favourite example of how terroristic the united states really is.
Which is where Ron Paul gets a little bit more enticing. The reason the economy is crashing in the states is because of all the over spending on wars, trying to be the policemen of the world.And trying to be a nanny state forcing so many programs and regulations on the citizens that dont make any sense at all.
Even though I dont agree with him on a lot of social issues, I hope for the good of the world and the US that he wins.
Ron Paul is a boss. He is the best candidate America has had since Ronald Regan. Returning America to its founding state of civil liberties and smaller government is what the world needs. I don't believe the american people understand the impact America has the rest of the world. Ron Paul is the only option if you want america to return to its former glory. He knows why the america is in this situation and his foreign policy is the only one that will prevent america from causing world war 3. It is seriously concerning and if something isn't done Iran will be invaded or attacked by America.
The world could be a much happier, safer, and more balanced place with Ron Paul restoring america to its former glory.
sorry for long wall of text go Ron Paul!!! wooooot u did great in the debates 2 GL in Iowa.
Ron Paul is consistent, likeable, and has managed to avoided a lot of the ugliness that being a politician usually entails. I was impressed when he said he wouldn't be screaming at Obama like all the other Republican candidates have, but actually talking about issues. Ron Paul's been for small government and balanced budgets from the start, while the rest of the "Tea Party" candidates were all for huge deficits (Iraq War, Bush tax cuts, Medicare part D) before a Democrat came into office with a shrinking tax base and a growing need for unemployment insurance and the rest of the social safety net. At which point they about faced pretty fast because it made for good political attack lines. That level of consistency is pretty commendable.
That said, if you really think (as Paul does) that bringing us back to the gold standard would be a great idea, it would 1) put power in the hands of gold producing countries, which are by and large in dictatorships in Africa, and 2) the US did a lot better in the Great Depression after we got taken off the gold standard, compared to countries that stayed on it longer. Quantitative easing and expanding the monetary base also helped tremendously soften the impact of the Great Recession (or so agrees basically every economist, unless you decide the field is worthless becuase a few charlatans posing as serious economists blew up our economy, or otherwise) Ron Paul would set us pretty far backwards in this regard.
Sorry Mr. Paul, but this idea is just too simplistic.
I don't agree with the pure libertatian philosophy of Ron Paul, but at least he's principled. More and more I'm realizing that Obama really doesn't have principles and is 100% a politician. I would vote for Paul over Obama if it came down to it(though it's unlikely)
On December 16 2011 16:50 pGElemental wrote: Ron Paul is a boss. He is the best candidate America has had since Ronald Regan. Returning America to its founding state of civil liberties and smaller government is what the world needs. I don't believe the american people understand the impact America has the rest of the world. Ron Paul is the only option if you want america to return to its former glory. He knows why the america is in this situation and his foreign policy is the only one that will prevent america from causing world war 3. It is seriously concerning and if something isn't done Iran will be invaded or attacked by America.
The world could be a much happier, safer, and more balanced place with Ron Paul restoring america to its former glory.
sorry for long wall of text go Ron Paul!!! wooooot u did great in the debates 2 GL in Iowa.
That's what i think, also as a foreign observator.
On December 16 2011 16:50 pGElemental wrote: Ron Paul is a boss. He is the best candidate America has had since Ronald Regan. Returning America to its founding state of civil liberties and smaller government is what the world needs. I don't believe the american people understand the impact America has the rest of the world. Ron Paul is the only option if you want america to return to its former glory. He knows why the america is in this situation and his foreign policy is the only one that will prevent america from causing world war 3. It is seriously concerning and if something isn't done Iran will be invaded or attacked by America.
The world could be a much happier, safer, and more balanced place with Ron Paul restoring america to its former glory.
sorry for long wall of text go Ron Paul!!! wooooot u did great in the debates 2 GL in Iowa.
That's what i think, also as a foreign observator.
That's what most foreign observers think. Too bad we can't vote for them.
America and it's country neighbor Canada, and to a lesser degree the world, need someone like Ron Paul. Even without considering his (excellent) stance on many issues, the fact remains that he is passionate, and NOT afraid to speak his mind and that is something so very rare in politicians these days.
Also, just realized how old this guy is (76).
MAD PROPS, if I could be 1/4 as sharp as him when I'm 76 I'd be a very happy old man.
If I read up on this stuff, then yeah, he basically embodies what Americans have been blurting around for ages. How their freedom is amazing and how they will fight for it. If people want America, they should vote for this guy.
I mostly look at the political campaigns for the propaganda and campaign video's though. It's always great to get inspired by them even if they are false promises. I'm a bit of a nut in that case.
On January 05 2012 17:16 happyness wrote: I don't agree with the pure libertatian philosophy of Ron Paul, but at least he's principled. More and more I'm realizing that Obama really doesn't have principles and is 100% a politician. I would vote for Paul over Obama if it came down to it(though it's unlikely)
I consider myself to be a libertarian and I'd vote for Ron Paul over Obama. But to be fair, Ron Paul is not truly a libertarian. He opposes free trade agreements and organizations like NAFTA and WTO, and he's rabidly pro-Life (being a doctor who delivered babies for his entire career)
However he is the closest that libertarians can get to having their voice heard in American politics. Although libertarians make up a big portion of the population, we lose due to political position. And because our political system is winner-take-all, that means we're always going to be crowded out of the two party system. Most "independents/moderates" are actually libertarians (whether they know it or not) because our beliefs straddle both parties. Its tough for libertarians to run as Democrats because even though we agree with liberals on social issues, but we are opposite on economic issues. And for Republicans its the other way around, we agree with conservatives on economic issues, but are opposite on social issues.
The struggles in electing libertarians is evident even in Ron Paul's current campaign. Ron Paul is very popular with Republicans for his anti-government zeal and strong pro-life credentials. But he's also very unpopular for his liberal/libertarian-esque stances on foreign policy and several other social issues such as privacy, homosexuality, religion, and drugs.
As much as I like Ron Paul, I don't see him getting past the primary. I'm certain that he could win over Obama in the general election with the conservative vote plus his huge influx of independents. But thats never going to happen unless he gets past the primary and there is no conservative alternative. Even in the hypothetical scenario where Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, I would not be surprised to see a super conservative Republican candidate go third party.
But I do like he's running and getting his ideas out there. I just might punish Republicans for not nominating Ron Paul by voting for Obama instead of going third-party. Depends how spiteful I feel I guess
On December 09 2011 22:55 Darkalbino wrote: Just going to bump this by saying, if Ron Paul gets in, I'll move to the USA.
If liberal gets into office in Australia, I'm moving to Sweden.
Please don't tell me you think Labor is doing a good job... lol just lol.I will never vote Labor because of that insane internet filter they tried to bring in.
Anyway i like Ron Paul , i've been signed up to the ron paul forums since 2007 and have donated to the forums and a couple of grassroots (non-official) programs.Obviously if i was living in the US i would also donate to the official campaign.
I agree. I hate labor. I will never forgive them for that internet censorship bill, they will never get my 1st preference after trying to put that draconian bill through parliament. I hate liberal too, but the beauty of a preferential voting system means that even with both being my last and penultimate preferences my vote still counts and my vote has a direct influence on who gets into parliament.
As to Ron Paul, I think he is a much better alternative to his current competition. People have criticized his fiscal policy, but to be honest, I think it's the best reason to vote for him. It's radical, but only a radical change in fiscal policy will solve America's money woes.
On January 05 2012 17:16 happyness wrote: I don't agree with the pure libertatian philosophy of Ron Paul, but at least he's principled. More and more I'm realizing that Obama really doesn't have principles and is 100% a politician. I would vote for Paul over Obama if it came down to it(though it's unlikely)
I consider myself to be a libertarian and I'd vote for Ron Paul over Obama. But to be fair, Ron Paul is not truly a libertarian. He opposes free trade agreements and organizations like NAFTA and WTO, and he's rabidly pro-Life (being a doctor who delivered babies for his entire career)
However he is the closest that libertarians can get to having their voice heard in American politics. Although libertarians make up a big portion of the population, we lose due to political position. And because our political system is winner-take-all, that means we're always going to be crowded out of the two party system. Most "independents/moderates" are actually libertarians (whether they know it or not) because our beliefs straddle both parties. Its tough for libertarians to run as Democrats because even though we agree with liberals on social issues, but we are opposite on economic issues. And for Republicans its the other way around, we agree with conservatives on economic issues, but are opposite on social issues.
The struggles in electing libertarians is evident even in Ron Paul's current campaign. Ron Paul is very popular with Republicans for his anti-government zeal and strong pro-life credentials. But he's also very unpopular for his liberal/libertarian-esque stances on foreign policy and several other social issues such as privacy, homosexuality, religion, and drugs.
As much as I like Ron Paul, I don't see him getting past the primary. I'm certain that he could win over Obama in the general election with the conservative vote plus his huge influx of independents. But thats never going to happen unless he gets past the primary and there is no conservative alternative. Even in the hypothetical scenario where Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, I would not be surprised to see a super conservative Republican candidate go third party.
But I do like he's running and getting his ideas out there. I just might punish Republicans for not nominating Ron Paul by voting for Obama instead of going third-party. Depends how spiteful I feel I guess
First, NAFTO and the WTO are not free trade organizations. They are used to create trade restrictions and cartels. It is the platform of the Libertarian Party, many libertarian think tanks and groups, and Dr. Paul that they are un-libertarian and restrict commercial freedom.
Second, there is no "libertarian" position on abortion. Both camps are supported and with varying degrees. Ron Paul is a Federalist on the issue and I think that's a more libertarian position than Federal bans or legalizations.
Do not vote for Obama. Don't legitimize his presidency with your support. If Dr. Paul does not get the nomination, either vote for Gary Johnson under the Libertarian Party ticket, write-in Ron Paul, or simply don't vote. I cannot stress this enough. Do not perpetuate the machine.
EPT
go Ron Paul!!! wooooot u did great in the debates 2 GL in Iowa.
