Ron Paul

[DarrelSPowers]

I was just reading this article on cnn, and it got me thinking about a political spectrum thread I was reading on this forum a while ago...

I realize that an internet forum is nowhere close to an accurate cross section of the voting population, but if I remember correctly there was a significant number of people here who were fairly liberterian. Personally, I'm only 23 and have only voted in one major election, registered democrat (friend's dad is a demo city judge back home) but the more I educate myself about politics the more I feel myself getting pulled to the right on various issues.

Anyway, maybe reading a political forum isn't the best place to learn about modern politics, but they're a far cry from what I learned about in AP us history back in high school. My question is, how frequently do you more experienced voters go independent? And by independent I mean "not republican or democrat." When I voted in 2004 for kerry I remember every annoying ass dem. activist on campus barking "a vote for nader is a vote for bush!" and I really had no idea who nader was, didn't like bush, and the lady at Kerry's house on haloween gave out great candy (I went to school in boston), so he got my vote. But yeah, I guess I'm just saying I'm one registered dem who might vote for Paul because... I like his position on constitutional rights and personal liberties...



and he wants to legalize it :laugh:

 

[andy04]

were you getting your news from here. Its like listening to a post game show at the home town rather that watching the game itself

 

[LegendKiller]

1. Because he isn't enthralled by wedge issues and he doesn't try to hoodwink voters with them.

2. Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

He gained no respect from people that could have helped, mainly because his followers are a bunch of raving lunatics.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Because lots of people are uncomfortable with real freedom. It scares them. Most people would rather give up their freedom for their government handouts, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc. A vote for Paul means less government and less free goodies that our older generation has been spoiled with. The younger generation understands that we have to pay for these things.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
the lady at Kerry's house on haloween gave out great candy (I went to school in boston), so he got my vote.

I guess your vote comes cheap eh?

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
the lady at Kerry's house on haloween gave out great candy (I went to school in boston), so he got my vote.

I guess your vote comes cheap eh?

For a 19 year old engineering student who was/still is fairly ignorant on political issues, a candy bar goes a long way

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Because lots of people are uncomfortable with real freedom. It scares them. Most people would rather give up their freedom for their government handouts, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc. A vote for Paul means less government and less free goodies that our older generation has been spoiled with. The younger generation understands that we have to pay for these things.

Yeah, which is why they've racked up more debt than any other generation before.

Please, the younger generation wants spoon-fed Youtube bullshit videos.

 

[Throckmorton]

Ron Paul is a creationist who believes in the church as the most powerful unit of government... In other words he's a stupid/insane theocrat who is at the same time anti-state. The libertarian/isolationist part of his platform is the typical feel good stuff that is just radical enough to click with a decent number of young people, but that doesn't mean it's good or has any basis in reality.

 

[yllus]

He's a complete nut on a number of pretty important things, but the GOP could still really use a strong dose of his influence as they reshape the party after this election. I hope the Ron Paul fans around here stay registered as Republicans and try to have a say in where the party goes next.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: yllus
He's a complete nut on a number of pretty important things, but the GOP could still really use a strong dose of his influence as they reshape the party after this election. I hope the Ron Paul fans around here stay registered as Republicans and try to have a say in where the party goes next.

Yeah, the more I read about politics I find that I'm social liberal and economic conservative... but things like public housing and welfare piss me off. I mean, I'm a mechanical engineer paying off student loans, can barely afford my apartment in the boston ghetto (roxbury) while I see uneducated thugs having no problem paying for their public housing up the block selling blow and stealing my bike. When is the govt going to help those who help themselves? I mean I'd like some handouts for once...

 

[halik]

He is nuts and his solutions are either idiotic or unimplementable in the real world?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Because lots of people are uncomfortable with real freedom. It scares them. Most people would rather give up their freedom for their government handouts, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc. A vote for Paul means less government and less free goodies that our older generation has been spoiled with. The younger generation understands that we have to pay for these things.

This is prime example of the Ron Paul-esque nuttery. You can't take a bunch of steaming bullshit and rhetoric, sprinkle the words 'freedom' 'liberty' and 'constitution' and think that it will add up to coherent Policy.

 

[dullard]

I am a blend between a democrat and a libertarian. I truely believe the libertarian ideals are ultimately the best possible end goal. However, I also believe that jumping directly from where we are now to the libertarian ideal state is very dangerous. I believe the change needs to be slow, cautious, and controlled. I believe that the democrat's version of those controls are infinitely better than the republican's versions of those controls. Yes, we should go towards Paul's libertarian stances, but we should do it carefully.

Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to just basically jump blindly into Pandora's box. He hasn't considered the consequences of the transition. He hasn't considered the instability that his proposed changes will create. He hasn't considered the destruction of current wealth that his policies will force (ie rich people hate him) nor the massive exploitiation of the poor that his policies will encourage (ie the poor people hate him) nor the crazed anarchy elimination of the security that the middle class currently feels (ie the middle class hates him).

Each governmental program that we have was put there for multiple reasons. Yes, there are multiple reasons to eliminate each program as well. But, we as a society have decided that the pros outweigh the cons. Building roads is expensive (con) but our economy and our enjoyment of life requires roads (pro). Generally, we believe the benefits of the infrastructure outweigh the costs. We as a society may have erred in our judgements, but at least there are reasons for our current choices. Yet, Paul wants to systematially dismantle just about every governmental program. Each and every voter relys upon at least one program, a program that Paul will take away. Thus each and every voter has a strong reason to oppose at least one of Paul's stances. That isn't an easy sell. It may ultimately be best for society, but it is hard to convince us.

Paul has consistantly gotten in the 3% range in actual votes and scientific polls (if you count both dem and rep votes). This is true from each of his presidential bids (this wasn't his first). He does have some support. But, he'll need to seriously consider at least 47% more of us and come up with a way to ease the transition for that 47%.

 

[ProfJohn]

Because his money and foreign policy is totally nuts and would both end up being a disaster.

 

[brandonb]

People are apathetic towards politics and their lives. When the Monday night football game is the most import thing happening on a weekly basis, what makes you expect they will get off the couch, turn off the football game, and start thinking politics? No, we have to have the system crash and burn. Maybe when riots occur and the football is no longer on, then people will actually start listening to people like Ron Paul. Until then, he's just a loon.

It's hard to undo whats been pounded into peoples head for 80 years, that we are a "free" country, and we have no worries about the world. That the government is here to save us.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: brandonb
People are apathetic towards politics and their lives. When the Monday night football game is the most import thing happening on a weekly basis, what makes you expect they will get off the couch, turn off the football game, and start thinking politics? No, we have to have the system crash and burn. Maybe when riots occur and the football is no longer on, then people will actually start listening to people like Ron Paul. Until then, he's just a loon.

It's hard to undo whats been pounded into peoples head for 80 years, that we are a "free" country, and we have no worries about the world. That the government is here to save us.

Ahh yes, the "everybody is an idiot but us" stance.

Sorry, doesn't wash. Thinking that RBPs are the only "smart" people on the planet excludes a huge portion of smarter people who think RPs ideas are stupid.

 

[GTKeeper]

I think Ron Paul has a lot of good views and I agree with the majority of his stances. HOWEVER his views are a little extreme at times and thats what prevented me from voting for him. Things like abolishing the IRS, privatizing EVERYTHING and the whole economic view is not right.

I think he literally interprets the constitution and doesn't get too much 'in the spirit of it'. There have been several house votes where he is the SOLE 'nay' in the whole chamber.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Because his money and foreign policy is totally nuts and would both end up being a disaster.

Coming from someone who thinks Bush did a good job, this is a compliment.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would love to see a third party with a real message of changes that are needed come to the fore and begin to attract a meaningful number of voters, but Paul doesn't seem to be the one to do it.

 

[Xavier434]

Putting my opinions about Libertarianism aside, if I were a true Libertarian then I would be appalled and disgusted by the thought of Ron Paul representing my party.

 

[StageLeft]

He has good points and bad. He's basically a one-colored hardcore pedantic enforcer of the constitution. That means he'd have the right side on some issues and the wrong on others. Basically, if he has a backpack of food and you're a few hours away from starving to death and ask him for a bite, unless it's in the constitution that he should give you a bite, he won't.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
2. Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

Wow you people are so close minded. Thinking that abolishing the fed and irs is something that could never happen. Here's a wake up call for you! There were plenty of times in american history where we didn't have the fed or an income tax. So I ask you why do you think that this is so "crazy" of an idea?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
2. Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

Wow you people are so close minded. Thinking that abolishing the fed and irs is something that could never happen. Here's a wake up call for you! There were plenty of times in american history where we didn't have the fed or an income tax. So I ask you why do you think that this is so "crazy" of an idea?

Any chance you know about the problems the incredibly weak federal government was plagued with back then? Or why your Federal Reserve was given the powers it now possesses in the late 60s? They were for pretty good reasons.

Also, see appeal to tradition.

 

[cpmer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
He has good points and bad. He's basically a one-colored hardcore pedantic enforcer of the constitution. That means he'd have the right side on some issues and the wrong on others.

Hurray for the two party system! Your either with us or your against us.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Because he's an absolute loon about other issues (Fed, abortion, religion, economics in general).

Religion and abortion? WTF?

He believes abortion should be left up to the states. Nothing loony about that at all. And he doesn't even mention this in his speeches, he doesn't even really talk about abortion unless he is specifically questioned about it. And due to his political philosophy, his personal religious beliefs don't matter, and you should understand why that's so.

So, that leaves you with only one issue which, in your opinion, makes him a loon. Economics. Specifically, the Fed.