Why I support Ron Paul

[KittenKoder]

First, quell the "Paulbot" cries and read it all or please do not expect me to even consider responding to your points.

The primary reason I support him is his honesty, however that was only the cue that he was different than other politicians. Now this is not enough to get me to actually vote for someone, but it's the first step to grabbing my attention as lies are my biggest complaint about politicians. I also do not usually vote for Repugs, and typically do not like their candidates at all. But with this first cue I paid a bit more attention to Ron.

So, like an intelligent voter, I looked for a flaw in his record, something he voted contrary to his claims. I literally found none. Not one instance in which hist votes ran contradictory to his claims. This has earned him the new adage by supporters, and rightfully so, of being "golden." He's a dried up old kook, but has not lied to his constituents in all this time. As long as I have lived I have not once seen an honest politician. Especially for ANY Republican and that should be standard for them. Look at the other candidates this time around, they have all lied and voted contrary to the party and the constituents.

Anyhow, this is where the Democrat supporters will attempt with the "but he believes ..." angle. Now, this would make a difference if not for one fact, he has not voted to push his beliefs as laws, not once. I do agree, his beliefs are insane, but a politician's beliefs are only important if they are hoisted on others through law or force, which he has not and has said he will not. In the mean time I have seen Democrats push religious ideals into laws behind the voters' backs, and no one seems to even question it. Is it not time to question that? I expect it from the Repugs, that's their party stance, but the Dems say they are against such things yet do it anyway. Ron however has said he will only extend freedoms, not reduce them. He even said he'd allow the people to choose freedoms he disagrees with, gay rights and abortion being the biggest two.

Now, time to demonstrate just why he'd be the best one to vote for, even if he does not win. The other politicians, all of them, and most media and corporations fear him. They fear him enough to even make baseless accusations, like racism, in spite of actual solid evidence countering that as well as showing the exact opposite to be true. Why are the media and corporations afraid of him? Here's the most likely reason. We know almost all politicians can be bribed, thus some corporation or other (which owns media) will of course want that politician in power, then they attack and smear all opponents. This means that either Ron cannot be bribed, or has at least not accepted one, since they all seem scared of him.

Now a few key things he said he wants to do:

1. Prevent all such bills like SOPA and PIPA.

2. End the wars, though he wants to unrealistically pull out, he will have to be realistic about it to get anything to happen.

3. Allow voters to decide the moral based issues, which we know they will be favorable in most states, gay marriage is already passing through states one by one pretty quickly and the abortion issue will have a chance to at least give alternatives.

4. Separation of church and state strengthened, we may be able to say bye bye "In God We Trust" on money if he gets his way with this. That's just a fun thought.

5. He says "end the fed" but we know this would be unrealistic and wouldn't happen, especially within 4 years, even 8 years is not enough time. But, it would force a lot of reforms that have been avoided by the politicians in power. So how is this a bad thing?

We all know that presidents do not have absolute power, and we also know that they have enough to get some changes made. We have allowed liars, cheaters, people who accept bribes, and power hungry greedy madmen in office. Let's put one in an office that has only one trait. I hear the "lesser of two evils" argument all the time, well, he IS the lesser of two evils when you factor in his beliefs, but if you ignore his beliefs he's probably the best politician we have had in a long time. So, what say you on the topic?

 

[tuxbox]

Ron Paul is freakin nuts! I dig the living crap out of him.

 

[Prolescum]

First, quell the "Paulbot" cries and read it all or please do not expect me to even consider responding to your points.

How about "Ronulan"? That's at least three-layers-deep funny.

The primary reason I support him is his honesty, however that was only the cue that he was different than other politicians. Now this is not enough to get me to actually vote for someone, but it's the first step to grabbing my attention as lies are my biggest complaint about politicians. I also do not usually vote for Repugs, and typically do not like their candidates at all. But with this first cue I paid a bit more attention to Ron.

:lol:

Sorry, but saying Ron Paul is honest is about as accurate as calling a carrot an energy drink. Have a look at the contributions this self-proclaimed "outsider" receives http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C00305342 . Have a look as he votes to stop out-of-control spending.

So, like an intelligent voter, I looked for a flaw in his record, something he voted contrary to his claims. I literally found none.

See above for examples found with a cursory Google search.

Not one instance in which hist votes ran contradictory to his claims. This has earned him the new adage by supporters, and rightfully so, of being "golden." He's a dried up old kook, but has not lied to his constituents in all this time.

Wrong. He says people should take responsibility for their claims, yet the series of newsletters carrying his name from the 80s and 90s (the racist, homophobic, anti-semetic ones) he initially claimed were "taken out of context". He later admitted writing "some of them". He now says he "didn't write them, didn't read them and disavows them". http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/42608

As long as I have lived I have not once seen an honest politician. Especially for ANY Republican and that should be standard for them. Look at the other candidates this time around, they have all lied and voted contrary to the party and the constituents.

Politicians are trained liars. It's part of the job.

Anyhow, this is where the Democrat supporters will attempt with the "but he believes ..." angle.

Not necessary, his record speaks for itself.

Now, this would make a difference if not for one fact, he has not voted to push his beliefs as laws, not once.

So his belief in the free market wouldn't be foisted upon the electorate? Sorry m'dear, but that's blinkered.

I do agree, his beliefs are insane, but a politician's beliefs are only important if they are hoisted on others through law or force, which he has not and has said he will not. In the mean time I have seen Democrats push religious ideals into laws behind the voters' backs, and no one seems to even question it.

Your country is broken; most observers accept this. Perhaps this is where energy could be focused.

Is it not time to question that? I expect it from the Repugs, that's their party stance, but the Dems say they are against such things yet do it anyway. Ron however has said he will only extend freedoms, not reduce them. He even said he'd allow the people to choose freedoms he disagrees with, gay rights and abortion being the biggest two.

Is this part of his "let the states decide" mantra? Who dominates the state legislatures?

Now, time to demonstrate just why he'd be the best one to vote for, even if he does not win. The other politicians, all of them, and most media and corporations fear him.

No, they use him as a guppie.

They fear him enough to even make baseless accusations, like racism, in spite of actual solid evidence countering that as well as showing the exact opposite to be true.

Well please give the evidence here.

Why are the media and corporations afraid of him? Here's the most likely reason. We know almost all politicians can be bribed, thus some corporation or other (which owns media) will of course want that politician in power, then they attack and smear all opponents. This means that either Ron cannot be bribed, or has at least not accepted one, since they all seem scared of him.

Your premise is flawed; see above links.

Now a few key things he said he wants to do:

1. Prevent all such bills like SOPA and PIPA.

2. End the wars, though he wants to unrealistically pull out, he will have to be realistic about it to get anything to happen.

3. Allow voters to decide the moral based issues, which we know they will be favorable in most states, gay marriage is already passing through states one by one pretty quickly and the abortion issue will have a chance to at least give alternatives.

4. Separation of church and state strengthened, we may be able to say bye bye "In God We Trust" on money if he gets his way with this. That's just a fun thought.

5. He says "end the fed" but we know this would be unrealistic and wouldn't happen, especially within 4 years, even 8 years is not enough time. But, it would force a lot of reforms that have been avoided by the politicians in power. So how is this a bad thing?

1. The president doesn't make those decisions.

2. The American economy would collapse without the military. Oh, and porn.

3. Morality should not be legislated.

4. A doctor who does not accept evolution will strengthen the establishment clause? Colour me sceptical.

5. What's so bad about "the fed"?

We all know that presidents do not have absolute power, and we also know that they have enough to get some changes made. We have allowed liars, cheaters, people who accept bribes, and power hungry greedy madmen in office. Let's put one in an office that has only one trait. I hear the "lesser of two evils" argument all the time, well, he IS the lesser of two evils when you factor in his beliefs, but if you ignore his beliefs he's probably the best politician we have had in a long time. So, what say you on the topic?

Bullshit.

 

[atheisthistorian]

Now a few key things he said he wants to do:

1. Prevent all such bills like SOPA and PIPA.

They have already effectively been prevented, and we didn't need Paul's squalid racism, or gold bug fanaticism to do it, all it took was public pressure. Also, SOPA and PIPA are acts of Congress. Presidents can limit but not fully restrain Legislators, if SOPA and PIPA were passed over his veto he could not prevent it.

2. End the wars, though he wants to unrealistically pull out, he will have to be realistic about it to get anything to happen.

The wars are already ending. U.S. troops have been steadily drawing down out of Iraq, and we've set targets for draw-down in Afghanistan. I doubt even the current manufactured rage about Koran burnings will stop the pull-out. There is simply no way Ron Paul could end the wars faster than what is currently being done. Presidents cannot snap their fingers and magically transport the troops back home.

3. Allow voters to decide the moral based issues, which we know they will be favorable in most states, gay marriage is already passing through states one by one pretty quickly and the abortion issue will have a chance to at least give alternatives.

Ron Paul is personally opposed to equal rights for gay people. Issues regarding civil rights are not meant to be left up to popular vote. That's called tyranny of the majority. Instead, all citizens are given equal protection under the law. Of course, Ron Paul also personally opposes the 14th Amendment which explicitly spells out that right. Ron Paul also opposes things like the Voter Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, meaning that Paul thinks that the "right" of the majority to discriminate against the minority is more important than the right of minorities to be treated like human beings. The Constitution's comity clause exists so that we don't end up in a patchwork of civil rights, where your citizenship can be threatened simply by crossing state borders.

4. Separation of church and state strengthened, we may be able to say bye bye "In God We Trust" on money if he gets his way with this. That's just a fun thought.

Ron Paul opposed the "In God We Trust" Resolution not because he was against religion in government, but because he wants the imposition of theocratic nonsense to be left up to the states. Make no mistake, Paul is not a secularist. He has publicly made religiously driven stands against abortion and birth control, not to mention his siding with the anti-vax nutcases. His stance on religious freedom is merely removing the safeguards of the federal government to protect us from state bias. It's the same mendacious crap we hear when Catholic Bishops call denying women the right to preventative medicine "religious freedom."

5. He says "end the fed" but we know this would be unrealistic and wouldn't happen, especially within 4 years, even 8 years is not enough time. But, it would force a lot of reforms that have been avoided by the politicians in power. So how is this a bad thing?

Okay, I really don't know where to go with this one. You freely admit that Paul could not end the Fed (He couldn't, it's an act of Congress), but you think threatening it would create "reforms?" What reforms would be produced precisely by giving more control of our financial system and interest rates to massive banks, or by removing what little oversight and regulation of our economy we have left? Do you agree with Paul that Baer Sterns, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are the wise stewards we should leave in control of our money?

We all know that presidents do not have absolute power, and we also know that they have enough to get some changes made. We have allowed liars, cheaters, people who accept bribes, and power hungry greedy madmen in office. Let's put one in an office that has only one trait. I hear the "lesser of two evils" argument all the time, well, he IS the lesser of two evils when you factor in his beliefs, but if you ignore his beliefs he's probably the best politician we have had in a long time. So, what say you on the topic?

Paul is not the lesser of two evils, he's a demonstrable racist lunatic with terrible ideas. Ignoring his beliefs is just as dangerous as embracing his insanity, because you end up in the same place, with a dogmatic objectivists in control of government. You really think militarizing the border is a swell idea? Or gouging out the social safety net? Or defunding the Department of Energy, the one agency that maintains a watch over our nuclear power plants? Have you forgotten what happened in Japan not too long ago? You think repealing citizenship birth rights against immigrants is the lesser of two evils? Stripping away the 14th Amendment?

Oh but sure, he'll get rid of that darn TSA, and legalize weed, and get those damn guv'ment taxmen off our backs. Sorry, I'm not buying this bullshit. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and having someone who is right on one or two issues does not excuse the big old load of crazy he brings to the table.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

So, what say you on the topic?

If you like the ideas Ron Paul holds, just vote libertarian. They are already on the ticket in most states. There is no point in splitting the vote by convincing people to write in Paul's name when they can get the same thing by voting libertarian.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Doesn't seem like Ron Paul has a chance in hell of winning.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Anyhow, this is where the Democrat supporters will attempt with the "but he believes ..." angle. Now, this would make a difference if not for one fact, he has not voted to push his beliefs as laws,

Oh, really?
I mean, he voted in favor of banning abortions even for rape victims. Though I'll admit that he does the Santora of the field one better by saying that abortion is okay in the cases where it is life-threatening for the mother. Still, he has voted for, or at least drafted motions for a personhood amendment to the Constitution to define life at conception into federal law.

He voted for a ban on embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds. He is not against the use of harvested adult stem cells, but embryonic is off-limits in his mind.

Note also, that both of the above examples are ones where he voted for a national ban, and not cases where he tows his usual line of how it should be up to the states. Nice to know that he's totally in favor of government staying out of personal affairs... oh, except for a woman's uterus. That's totally the domain of government.

He has supported and endorsed "academic freedom" bills which serve to have creationism pollute public school science curricula (these have been state level bills so far, so he doesn't really get to vote on them).

He is also a full-blown climate-change denier and while he has voted against big oil subsidies, it's more likely the case that he's against them for economic reasons (reasons which I also don't entirely disagree with). He has almost without exception, however, voted against tax incentives for "green" practices and/or energy conservation. I don't know what his problem is here. I can understand his position on not putting caps on carbon footprint or purchase of credits and that sort of thing... I can also understand not wanting to put government dollars into funding alternative energy companies... but tax incentives are neither a direct investment nor a prohibitive measure. As a general rule, though, regardless of his reasonings, he has a very staunchly (nearly 100%) anti-environmentalism lean in his voting record.

To me, quite possibly the biggest head-scratcher, and one that makes him unelectable in my eyes are his positions on medicine and health care. Not so much in regards to the health insurance industry, but his views on what qualifies as medicine. Admittedly, no such bill has ever come forth in legislation so far, but he has claimed that one thing he would do as president is to allow independent organizations to grant medical licenses and treat all forms of alternative therapies like homeopathy, chiropractic, reiki healing, etc. to all be legally classified as medicine. As a former medical doctor (Paul, I mean, not me), it is all the more appalling coming from him. Having practiced actual science-based medicine, he does not have the luxury of not knowing better than that.

4. Separation of church and state strengthened, we may be able to say bye bye "In God We Trust" on money if he gets his way with this. That's just a fun thought.

Where did you get the idea that he would do this? He's gone on record as recently as 2004 saying he completely rejects the idea of separation of church and state. Granted, he accepts the "no religious test" part, and he has written bills to allow things that are technically already allowed under our current laws, but he seems to think aren't... but I'd like to know where you get the idea that he wants to strengthen separation of church and state. I've never once heard that from him.