[POLL] Is Ron Paul fit for Presidency?

[J-Money]

No. No chance. He probably won't even be alive for a whole 4 more years. Way too old.

 

[randomrogue]

No. No chance. He probably won't even be alive for a whole 4 more years. Way too old.

Of all the things wrong with any candidate, age is really not that big a deal. I'd rather have a good President for 2 years than a bad one for 4.

 

[werepossum]

I don't know if I could vote for him, but fit to be President? Absolutely. I don't like many of his positions, but he's more knowledgeable about and respectful toward the Constitution than any candidate.

As far as Obama, he was more unqualified in 2008 than any President we've ever had. Now however he's had the three toughest years of OJT one could ever get. So while you can say you disagree with his policies, and I disagree with many of them, you can't possibly say he's not qualified. It's axiomatic that no one can possibly get better qualifications for being President than being President.

 

[BoberFett]

Ron Paul would strip the people of power by denying the people the right to a powerful government that can stand up for them against powerful interests. It would be a 'non-government tyranny', as the private powers rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the absence of democratic government. Show me the nation in human history achieving this 'small government high freedom' model you claim.

Thomas Jefferson did not say what you misquote. Gerald Ford did.

Yes, clearly with government bigger than it ever has been, we're freer than we ever have been.

 

[werepossum]

yes, clearly with government bigger than it ever has been, we're freer than we ever have been.

lol +1

 

[DCal430]

Yes, clearly with government bigger than it ever has been, we're freer than we ever have been.

Ron Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment, which would allow for unchecked state government. The 14th amendment protects your rights from the state.

Ron Paul is only for a small federal government, he thinks states can trample all over people.

 

[BoberFett]

Ron Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment, which would allow for unchecked state government. The 14th amendment protects your rights from the state.

Ron Paul is only for a small federal government, he thinks states can trample all over people.

Yes, we definitely need the feds to save us from the states.

I mean, the feds would never start anything like a war on it's citizens who choose to ingest particular chemicals, or grope it's citizens before they're allowed to travel. Not to mention how Connecticut invaded Iraq. Those damn states...

 

[Anarchist420]

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."


When a President takes the oath of office, he promises he "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


If he cannot uphold Article 2.... he is incompetent.

I thought I said he wouldn't be a unitary executive. I'll even admit Washington wasn't a unitary executive and that Andrew Jackson was.

 

[bfdd]

Ron Paul would strip the people of power by denying the people the right to a powerful government that can stand up for them against powerful interests. It would be a 'non-government tyranny', as the private powers rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the absence of democratic government. Show me the nation in human history achieving this 'small government high freedom' model you claim.

Thomas Jefferson did not say what you misquote. Gerald Ford did.

Remember when I made that thread about atheists replacing God with Government? lols, Craig you want some unaccountable entity with no face or reason to stand up for you against powerful interests? What powerful interests? Big Corps? The Government PROTECTS THEM, THEY PROTECT THEM FROM US. If the Feds had LESS control, people probably would be hung up from trees right now for robbing motherfuckers blind. You're just a baby who needs mama to coddle you your entire life and you're so afraid of the real world you want them to control and coddle everyone else as well. You're a giant blubbering vagina who is completely incapable of self thought and self responsibility.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Ron Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment, which would allow for unchecked state government. The 14th amendment protects your rights from the state.

Ron Paul is only for a small federal government, he thinks states can trample all over people.

Ron Paul is a deceitful bastard.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, we definitely need the feds to save us from the states.

I mean, the feds would never start anything like a war on it's citizens who choose to ingest particular chemicals, or grope it's citizens before they're allowed to travel. Not to mention how Connecticut invaded Iraq. Those damn states...

I don't think you understood the point he was making. It isn't the "feds" who are supposed to save us from the states, if by "feds," you mean the federal government. It is the U.S. Constitution. RP does not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. He thinks the states can infringe on the rights of individuals. For example, if a state wants to pass a law that says it's a crime to criticize a sitting governor, then according to RP, that is permissible because the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states.

- wolf

 

[BoberFett]

Ron Paul is a deceitful bastard.

And you're a paid astroturfer AND a deceitful bastard. Guess there's no White House in your future.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't think you understood the point he was making. It isn't the "feds" who are supposed to save us from the states, if by "feds," you mean the federal government. It is the U.S. Constitution. RP does not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. He thinks the states can infringe on the rights of individuals. For example, if a state wants to pass a law that says it's a crime to criticize a sitting governor, then according to RP, that is permissible because the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states.

- wolf

If that were a fact, I'd disagree with him 100%. However I've never understood that to be his position.

 

[woolfe9999]

If that were a fact, I'd disagree with him 100%. However I've never understood that to be his position.

It IS his position though. The USSC, through what they call the "incorporation" doctrine, has said that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. RP disagrees with this. He says the states can enforce individual rights through their own constitutions, which in many cases can be changed by simple majority vote. If we were to actually eliminate incorporation, it would become a lot easier for state governments to infringe on individual rights, such as banning firearms, for example. RP may not support the states doing these things, but he favors removing the most important legal impediment to them doing so.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

It IS his position though. The USSC, through what they call the "incorporation" doctrine, has said that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. RP disagrees with this. He says the states can enforce individual rights through their own constitutions, which in many cases can be changed by simple majority vote. If we were to actually eliminate incorporation, it would become a lot easier for state governments to infringe on individual rights, such as banning firearms, for example. RP may not support the states doing these things, but he favors removing the most important legal impediment to them doing so.

- wolf

Link? I'm not a Ron Paul follower so I'm not familiar with nearly everything he says, but I've never heard him say that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. Rather, I've heard him say the federal government overreaches in what it takes from what should legally be the states' purview, and with that I completely agree.

 

[airdata]

People really do make this whole thing way too complicated.

Ron Paul is more qualified than other candidates who aren't being singled out and slandered as being unelectable. So if the other cadidates are electable, so is Dr Paul.

 

[woolfe9999]

Link? I'm not a Ron Paul follower so I'm not familiar with nearly everything he says, but I've never heard him say that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. Rather, I've heard him say the federal government overreaches in what it takes from what should legally be the states' purview, and with that I completely agree.

RP opposes the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claiming it was not legally ratified and hence is not a part of the Constitution. It is the 14th Amendment, which by its own terms applies directly to the states, that the SCOTUS has "incorporated" the Bill of Rights into. Without the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. You can find dozens of links on this. Just google RP and incorporation.

 

[DesiPower]

He is the best and last hope of saving America, to stop the self destruct sequence that has been started by the politicians in bed with business community. Unfortunately its never goaan happen, he is never gonna be the president. the mass to this ball rolling downhill is too great to let people like Ron Paul get near it.

 

[yhelothar]

RP opposes the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, claiming it was not legally ratified and hence is not a part of the Constitution. It is the 14th Amendment, which by its own terms applies directly to the states, that the SCOTUS has "incorporated" the Bill of Rights into. Without the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. You can find dozens of links on this. Just google RP and incorporation.

What exactly does the bill of rights apply to before the 14th amendment if not to the states? :|
Are you saying that before the 14th amendment, people had no right to free speech?

Also, what's the point of that given the Supremacy clause of the Constitution?

 

[woolfe9999]

What exactly does the bill of rights apply to before the 14th amendment if not to the states? :|
So before the 14th amendment, people had no right to free speech?

And what's the point of that given the supremacy clause of the Constitution?

Because the U.S. Constitution only defines and limits the powers of the federal government except where it expressly says otherwise. Without the 14th Amendment, which expressly applies "due process" (interpreted by the SCOTUS as incorporating most of the rights contained in the first 10 amendments) to the states, the only layer of protection for individuals against state governments is the state constitutions. So the answer to your final question is, prior to the 14th amendment, there was no protection against state governments taking away free speech other than state constitutions.

- wolf

 

[First]

Bober, yes, that is seriously what Ron Paul believes WRT the 14th Amendment. See here. He wrote legislation trying to get a version of this into law here.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If that were a fact, I'd disagree with him 100%. However I've never understood that to be his position.

LOL - another Paulbot who doesn't even know Paul's own positions.

This is what Ron Paul calls the incorporation doctrine that applies the bill of rights to the states: PHONEY

Yes, he called it the phoney incorporation doctrine.

The man is insane. Stop following him as if he were a cult leader and actually look into his positions.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What exactly does the bill of rights apply to before the 14th amendment if not to the states? :|
Are you saying that before the 14th amendment, people had no right to free speech?

Also, what's the point of that given the Supremacy clause of the Constitution?

The bill of rights didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment. That's how the Supreme Court ruled. And that's what Ron Paul wants to go back to, which is ridiculous and even his own Paulbots haven't been programmed to realize this.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Link? I'm not a Ron Paul follower so I'm not familiar with nearly everything he says, but I've never heard him say that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. Rather, I've heard him say the federal government overreaches in what it takes from what should legally be the states' purview, and with that I completely agree.

Just look at Ron Paul's own words.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html

"If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases — not only when it serves our interests."

Yet another Paul supporter who doesn't even realize what Paul actually stands for. This is so common.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Ron Paul would strip the people of power by denying the people the right to a powerful government that can stand up for them against powerful interests. It would be a 'non-government tyranny', as the private powers rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the absence of democratic government. Show me the nation in human history achieving this 'small government high freedom' model you claim.

Thomas Jefferson did not say what you misquote. Gerald Ford did.

IMO its already these powerful interests that are in bed with big government. if we remove the big government, the special and powerful interests will have no veil or preferential treatment under the law that has enabled this 'raping'.

we would be breaking fascism (the marriage of big corporations and big government) and simply leave behind the big corporations and special interests without the big shots in the .gov letting them get away with their misdeeds.

people are shitty and have been for millennia. without big government and the corruption that has spread to them, the shitty, scandalous people will take a blow and will be revealed for the scoundrels they are.

how to deal with them, is another matter. history has taught us that it usually ends in bloody, violent revolution.