Why shouldn't I vote for Ron Paul?

If you like not having mercury in your tap water or earning a living wage, he's not necessarily a good choice.

Libertarians like Paul are big on deconstructing environmental regulations and labor laws. As recently as the first Republican debate this summer, Paul described worker's wages in America as "artificially high." No, you old buzzard, the cost of living is artificially high, and turning the real estate market into a speculative pyramid scheme has done this nation more lasting harm than all the union strikes in the world.

Paul's fascination with a return to the gold standard instead of the treasury notes we use now is pure crackpottery. Gold is just as much a fiat currency as the dollar. It's value to libertarians lies in the fact that there's a scarce supply of it, and it's already collected into the hands of a few.

The kind of society that libertarians would build is one where capitalism's worst excesses aren't reigned in by rule of law. Libertarianism puts a friendly face on feudalism, and Ron Paul puts a friendly face on libertarianism. He's better in front of a camera than Lyndon LaRouche, and he comes along at a time when the Democratic Party's current generation of leaders are willing to run a tar sands pipeline through aquifers and pass health care legislation written by the insurance cartel.

I understand your question, though. I have to make the same choice you have to make. I have to decide if I can muster the necessary cynicism to vote to reelect a torturer and an accomplice after the fact to torturers, a war criminal and an accomplice after the fact to war criminals, just to save Social Security. I have to decide if that's worth it.

I'm not going to pretend to be a political know-it-all, as there are plenty of people far more educated on the subject then I who can chime in here. But Ron Paul seems like one of those guys who has a lot of great ideas, all of which are outweighed by the few batshit crazy ones.

 

He wants to completely do away with virtually ALL government agencies. The Department of Education, Health and Human Services, EPA, Energy Department, etc etc. These are programs that are flawed, and without a doubt need to be revamped. But eliminating them all together? Not a good idea.

 

Paul would also do away with Social Security and Welfare, which, again, should not be eliminated but reexamined and reworked.

 

His black and white view of how the federal government should operate in relation to the Constitution presents a lot of problems when taken to the extreme; he takes the concept of State's rights as far as one can. His own religious beliefs are a big concern to me. Personally, I cannot, under any circumstances, bring myself to vote for a person who is staunchly anti-abortion and does not "believe" in evolution. He would allow states to decide whether religion should be present in schools, and whether non-religious people can legally hold office. Paul would also do away with many of the already weak firearm ownership regulations. Legality of abortion would be left to the states as well.

 

Basically what I'm saying is that, while minimizing the role of the Federal Government as much as Paul aims to has it's plus sides (same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, ending the Patriot etc) it also presents a LOT of problems.

Paul has eased up a great deal on his entitlement program views, as this is one of the big topics right now. What he's saying seems to translate to "I won't cut it, but I'm not helping it". Allow the current generation of elders to receive the benefits, and let the money run out.

From an '08 debate:

Q: Are you still in favor of abolishing Social Security?

A: Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.

From an interview in May of this year:

    WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

    PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

    WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Do most candidates platforms even matter though? There's no way any of this, 9-9-9, or a plethora of other things not decided a long time ago are ever getting through the Congress and the Senate even in the highly improbable likelihood that someone who isn't the pre-ordained candidate gets elected.

Could he though? Jimmy Carter tried to withdraw US Forces from South Korea and ultimately the entire establishment moved against him (military and political). He ended up being able to remove almost no-one. Legally it was possible for him to just order it done but it was made politically impossible by a very concerted and sustained effort which is why it never happened as he planned.

He does seem to more consistently stick to his principles than most, that's for sure. I think it's a moot point though as he's not going to be President.

 

Given the total gridlock President Obama has had up to this point, I can't see anyone getting much of their platform through if they're elected. Especially if the Democrats get sick of the Republicans perceived stonewalling and slam the brakes just as much on at their side of things.

On the surface Ron Paul's platform seems real appealing. Reagan espoused some of the same things (eg get rid of the Dept of Education etc). I think he'd do some good in moving the country in a general direction that is positive.

 

Thing is, I have no faith that he'd be able to do anything if he got elected.

If nothing else, I believe that the feuding between an oil industry owned Republican legislature and an anti-imperialism Libertarian President over defense policy would make for some damn entertaining television.

The only plausible way to break the oil cartel's hold over Congress would be to go full blown socialist and nationalize the industry, but no Libertarian would suggest that. No Democrat either, as long as campaign finance laws are what they are.

Great thread, Barry.  I'm an independent who has voted Democrat, Republican, and Independent (Ventura) in my voting career.  I do find many of Ron Paul's positions appealing, but I question his viability to get elected AND his ability to get things done.

Ron Paul is seductive on his non-adventurism in overseas entanglements and sane drug policy but take a look at the history of Pinochet's Chile--that's what he wants to do here.  50% unemployment.  A huge drop in people with social security (because they privatized it).  No department of education.  etc.  Ron Paul is great where he is, throwing zingers at Republican conventions, but if you vote for him, you're throwing away your vote because he'll never be elected president (for good reason) and if by some strange miracle he does get elected, you won't like what he will do.

That means hand it to Wall St. to skim fees off the top and gamble with.  It also means that people who are not strong could find themselves homeless and destitute in their old age, which prompted the creation of social security in the first place.  Social Security is the most successful public program in history.  It has operated at a surplus and has never missed a single penny in payments.  I saw what happened when all of a sudden in the '90s putting your retirement in mutual funds was all the rage.  Guess who helped themselves to that money?  That's what they want to do to social security.  Wall St. can't stand that there's a huge trust fund just sitting there unmolested.  Ron Paul, wittingly or not, doesn't seem to think it needs any protection from those disgusting parasites.

Just another old white republican?

 

You're a complete idiot. I dont even care what you wrote after that.. doesnt matter if you support Paul or not, you're still a fing idiot. 

How nice of you to stop by and elevate the discussion a bit.

cracks me up seeing all these liberal halfwits trying to hi-jack or 'start' their own 'anti-federal reserve' movements (ie OWS)

 

The anti-fed movement has be a 'FAR RIGHT' issue since 1913. Infact, any time some 'crazy right winger' would preach about the FED or in some cases WALK right in with a weapon and attempt to do a citizens arrest... or just the 'right wing militias' in general who are opposed to the FED....  the mainstream liberal media would paint them as 'lunatic far right racist'.

 

Ron Paul is a Paleo Conservative. Representing American Conservatism before the Neo-Con Liberals hi-jacked the GOP starting in the 70's, then 80's, ending in a full take over after the 911 attacks.

 

Ron Paul was always supported by the 'Far Right Crazy Militia Types'. Thats his political base and roots. But this has nothing to do with Militia's, im just mentioning them because thats what braindead Liberal idiots in this country think of when they hear the term 'Far Right'. By todays NeoCon Liberal definition, Tomas Jefferson would be considered a 'Radical Far Rightwinger' and so would the Founding Fathers of this Country. Infact theres video footage of the DHS teaching their officers that the Founding Fathers 'could' be considered no different then 'Terrorist'.

 

The problem with the 'others' in this country who 'kinda' like Ron Pual but dont know what the deal is exactly, is simple. They've been brainwashed by the mainstream media and also by a lack of education into thinking the 'Republicans' are infact, 'Republicans'. They're not. The scumbags running the GOP are Neo-Cons. Its amazing for us that theres still a very large portion of Americans who have absolutely no clue what or who the Neo-Cons are. These people are complete idiots. Just like the OWS people... clueless morons who are now attempting to claim the 'Anti-FED' movement is of THEIR creation. hahahahahaha unreal.

 

So when a sefl hating, gutless, liberal weazel like 'Barry Woodward' starts his worthless thread with the sentence "Ron Paul may be a old white Republican" then continues with reasons why he 'might be interested' in his positions. I can do only one thing, laugh at the utter stupidity and complete FAILURE of the self hating left in this country who was USED, and tossed aside in the 60's, 70's, 80's. Who's own polices lead us to this position today. Now they blindly, and ignorantly say to themselves 'hmmmm, that sounds like its true, i might think that'. After rejecting the Far Right their ENTIRE lives because they're a bunch of cowardly weazels who dare not 'offened' anyone or anything, even if it means their own demise. 

 

The Anti-FED movement was ALWAYS FAR RIGHT. For many reasons, not only monetary policy, but due to the group who actaully created it and put themselves in power of it. These are things the clueless left knows nothing about. They just yell and scream in the streets like children... when all they would have to do is LISTEN to the Far Right policies that have been around way before they were BORN.

 

People like 'Barry Woodward' and pathetic.

Why I'd never vote for Ron Paul.....he doesn't believe in evolution.

He hides it well, but he's a religious nutjob.

He also would like to make abortion illegal.

 

 

Dawkin's response to another "RP's" (Rick Perry) ignorance about evolution....

<excerpt>

 

 

and here come the Ron Paul fanatics......

 

they really can give the "Twihard" fans a run for their money.

 

 

This is a perfect example of the diseased self hating liberal mind.

 

"My point in using those words was to appeal to those that might dismiss him for those things." So, in other words Racist?

 

I've been in the Ron Pual camp long before 2008. I can assure you, we're not interested in appealing to Racist who 'might dismiss' Ron Paul based upon the color of his Skin.

 

lol you're a clown... 1700 post? really? dear god

Censoring my post already huh? yeah figured as much from the cowardly self hating left. Its no wonder the left stays 'dazed and confused'... as soon as someone comes along who actually connects the dots, naming names, dating dates... they run into the corner like cowards.

 

It really is some sort of mental disorder. A disorder that forces you to reject positions... thus remaining in a constant state of non-position. You see... we just call it cowardly. You're a coward, unable to take a solid position in fear that you might actually have to defend that position.

 

In the deseased liberal mind... everything is just 'opinion' no matter what the issue may be. 

 

So when the liberal mind comes across a solid position... they freak out, dont know how to react, cant handle it.... which leads to them censoring, banning, freaking out as a way of 'not having to deal with life'.

 

 

 

Simple: he spawned Rand Paul.

What really confuses me about that tirade (well, in addition to neocons being liberals and how it requires media bias to paint a guy with a rifle trying to citizen's arrest the Federal Reserve as an extremist) is that he's hating on Barry, who is bursting with enthusiasm for his guy.  Despite the attempts at even-handedness, this thread was obviously created from the zeal of the newly converted; check out the flurry of links , the overestimation of his actual viability as a candidate, the way every other sentence starts with "Ron Paul".  He's clearly crushing pretty hard on the guy, but apparently not hard enough for our new friend.

 

I don't mean any of that as a knock, Barry.  You should vote for him if you think he's the best man for the job.  I may not agree with Paul's positions, but I think he adds a valuable perspective to the debates and I like that he can occasionally make the other candidates squirm through a modicum of honesty and consistency.  I may not want him in office, but I like having him in the election.

Who do you think helped get the Fed audited?  Socialist Bernie Sanders.  And who co-sponsored the Fed audit bill with Ron Paul -- super-lefty Alan Grayson.  I don't really understand the point of a rant about the Fed being a far right issue.  President Kennedy, a liberal, tried to nationalize it.   Your argument is kind of dumb.

    +1

 

 

He's also REALLY not an ally.

I don't think anyone's been painting Obama as some kind of same-sex marriage advocate, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the current Paul discussion. This is one of those things where the federal government should supersede state law and not allow discrimination to play a part in the granting of marriages. Something you'll never get from either of these guys.

 

Newly converted ex-liberal supporters of Ron Paul can be found all over the place. In mass. Disillusioned White Democrats who naively voted for Obama only to watch him expand the Wars and Bailout wallstreet while attempt to cover all that up with a few FAILED Federal Loan Refinancing programs as a way to trump himself up as a success, isn't working. The black community votes on race, which makes them racist. The Mexican demographic (not even Hispanic, simply Mexican) votes because he keeps promising amnesty for millions of illegal Mexicans. 

 

What sort of reaction are you looking for towards individuals like Barry? Someone who has rejected people like Paul his entire life. Someone who was brainwashed with the anti-white racial politics of the far left. Someone who now... in 2011 has finally 'seen the light' of Traditional Conservative positions and issues after a lifetime of criticizing them and the people associated with it?

 

Are we supposed to throw party's for Barry or any other ex-liberals who FINALLY get it? Who finally understand those 'crazy right wingers' have been right all along on a multitude of issues, not only the Federal Reserve? And that their liberal 60's ideology is based in absolutely NOTHING. That they were USED for votes by the (now NeoCons) who SOLD THEM OUT???

 

If the 'white man be running everything'... why would Traditional Conservatives have a problem with the single most powerful financial institution in the country (if not the world?) the Federal Reserve? if by YOUR logic the Federal Reserve should be just another tool for the 'white man'. So why would the white man want to take down his own white man financial power structure?  Lol you dont get it do you. Course you dont, you're a leftist uneducated moron who can only see things in terms of race. Could it be, possibly? that Conservativism is actually based and rooted in a VERY REALY belief system? opposed to 'keeping dem old white guys in power' like you and other idiotic leftist would have everyone believe? 

 

You see, the left in America is nothing. Who are you exactly? You're a group of 100's of sub-groups who all disagree with eachother. There is no Left.  There is only Right. You dont get it, because your perspective is limited to 20-30yrs? In otherwords YOUR lifetime. The Left and the Left mentality is 'everythings new'... 'everythings ground breaking and fresh', 'never been done before'. Thats completely bogus and the typical childish frame of mind. Thats why you see all these Lefist kids at OWS who have adapted traditionally FAR RIGHT stances without having a clue they're FAR RIGHT stances. LOL! its halarious how oblivious the Left is. "Everythings NEW! we're revolutionaries fighting the old white guys, i mean uhh, the BANKS! yeah thats it". LOL!

 

Thats why the Traditional Right, the REAL Right... not the fake NeoCon Liberal Right hasnt come out to support OWS. Because its a FAKE movement playing on the success's of Anti-Fed Paleo Conservative talking points and stances brought to the limelight by Ron Paul and others. 

 

 The Left is a broken party with no leadership. How can you LEAD a party that doesn't even exist? Sure theres this thing called the 'Left' by the media... but who and what is it really? Like i said, its a broken group of 100's of SUB-groups who each have completely different agendas. And almost all of them are racially based. The only thing they seem to agree on is 'getting rid of old white republicans'... as our friend Barry the newly 'converted' Liberal likes to word it, in the hope he might 'appeal' to the rest of you closet racist here who hate white people but would never admit it.

 

Liberals like Barry who have finally 'woken up' out of their 60's era Liberal stupor are to BE EXPECTED. We simply have the view of 'well about damn time'.

 

 

JFK was a Traditionalist Catholic and a Conservative Republican in the historically European use of the word. You see, history goes back farther then 30yrs. I know its really hard for you to grasp that. Blacks like you just dont get it. Because for YOU, history started when 1) the boat dropped you off 2) Civil Rights Act was passed

 

Unfortunately, history expands a LITTLE farther then those two events.

 

So having an in-depth discussion about the political history of Europe and how it relates to America is pointless in the Black Community. Blacks want to re-write their own American Version of History that is focused on THEIR experience and noone elses. The 'Black Experience' is NOT the American Experience. Its a small portion OF the American Experience. An important distinction for the Left to understand. Also, the Black Experience has been highly propghandized for political gain at this point to the point its become a sideshow. So say disgruntled blacks who are upset with their race pimping leaders who lead them round and round in circles endlessly. So its no surprise you 'dont get it' when talking about what is NOW considered 'Far Right' by the main stream media when in reality its just Traditional European Americanism. Why? because you have no perspective other then the image that stares you back in your mirror. How pathetic.

 

 

 

 

Edited by EndTheFEDMafia - 11/6/11 at 1:21pm

 

holy shit.

 

 

 

Catholic or Protestant?

 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we all know where this is headed. Does anyone want to keep this particular conversation going?

Ehhh....if I'm not mistaken it's more like "live and let the states decide." Which isn't really progress in regards to this topic, if you ask me.

The mainstream has a ridiculous and untenable stance on gay marriage that will go the way of the dodo eventually.  States are forging the path and will continue to do so until the federal government is forced to displease the hate-fueled minority for whom gay marriage is a major issue.  It's just a matter of time.  

http://easterniowagovernment.com/2011/03/07/ron-paul-says-gay-marriage-abortion-decisions-should-be-left-to-states/

 

If he's changed or clarified things since then, I will stand corrected.

"Ideally" being the operative word. The next sentence is "but it's among the issues that constitutionally should be dealt with at the state level". Shaky ground, there.

It is only a matter of time. Sadly, it's not happening as fast as it should.

Agree.  But it's a start.

Do you see how this thread turned into a few peoples own individual wants and needs? opposed to the.... oh say? complete a totally destruction of the globes financial economic system? thus affecting every single lifeform and issue on the planet?

 

Yet, Ron Paul's stance on 'gay marriage' is more important as to a vote or no vote according to a few grossly self infatuated leftist pigs here.

 

Your homosexuality is hardly relevant amongst the issues we're facing. What a selfish a-hole.