Why liberal democrats should vote for Ron Paul

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Wow...

I guess this explains why Republicans won't vote for him. 😛

Actually his stance on foreign policy is EXACTLY why I cannot stand the idea of voting for him. It was obvious during the first Republican debate and I said this at that time and have said it ever since. I liked him until then.

 

[nageov3t]

is it so hard to accept the fact that some of us have legitimate issues with ron paul's positions?

# Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
# Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
# Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
# Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
# Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
# Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
# Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
# Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
# Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
# Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

 

[NaughtyGeek]

is it so hard to accept the fact that some of us have legitimate issues with ron paul's positions?

Nope, I'm just hopeful that you're not the majority. Personally, I could care less what the man's personal beliefs are so long as he continues to support The Constitution and what it stands for. Unlike the other ding-dongs we have available to choose from, Dr. Paul actually segregates his opinions from his duty to "uphold The Constitution of The United States." His record shows exactly that. But then again, I don't care for the concept that we should live in an Orwellian society where the government watches our every move and takes care of all the people who feel it's more beneficial to stay on welfare than to work.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: loki8481
is it so hard to accept the fact that some of us have legitimate issues with ron paul's positions?

# Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
# Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
# Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
# Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
# Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
# Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
# Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
# Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
# Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
# Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
# Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

No, it's not hard to accept. In fact, it's awesome. However, posting a partial list of his voting history is meaningless. Take the "Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines", for example. Dr. Paul is hardly against stem cell research... he's against federal funding for it since it's not a federal issue outlined in the Constitution. Every Congressman should have voted the same if they were truly intent on upholding the Constitution as opposed to their personal agendas.

Too many people are quick to write him off because they don't take time to comprehend his position, not because they disagree with his stance. Or, they write him off because they don't understand the Constitution and the reasoning behind it.

I think its great that you disagree with him on some issues. However, as I mentioned earlier, are you honestly going to tell me that there is a better candidate running right now?

 

[Lord Bilz]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What would you rather have, leading-edge grassroots campaigning or swiftboat smear ads?

Neither. I'd rather have a man competent to be POTUS, of which Paul is most definitely not.

Nobody gives a damn about a "grassroots" effort. Just ask Howard Dean.

Republicans were very scared of Howard Dean, that's why they brainwashed everyone he was crazy.

 

[Stoneburner]

Ron Paul, and all libertarians, are idiots and would be far more harmful in power than bush has been.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Registered republicans will decide if he gets the nomination, convince them. Even he did get the republican nomination, ran as an independent, or as a libertarian I still wouldn't vote for him as I disagree with him on a majority of issues.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Ron Paul, and all libertarians, are idiots and would be far more harmful in power than bush has been.

Funny you use the word power when his intent is to diminish the power of the presidency and centralized government. The founders specifically and deliberately chose the word "president"(from the word preside) because it was a very moderate word and the office was intended to be a moderate position. They eliminated titles such as "his holy highness" & "great supreme king" because the only power intended for the office was to protect the rights of the people and the security of the Republic.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

I think its great that you disagree with him on some issues. However, as I mentioned earlier, are you honestly going to tell me that there is a better candidate running right now?

I genuinely think that any of the democrats running for office would make better presidents than Ron Paul... I think Mitt Romney and John McCain would also make better presidents, though I'd be hesitant to vote for either myself.

my thoughts at the moment are... clinton > richardson > biden > obama > mccain > not voting > romney > turd sandwich

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Perry404
If you are old enough maybe you can hearken back to the time of John F Kennedy and remember what it is to be passionate. If not then maybe you have never known it.

Nope. Carter was the first prez I have any memory of. *clue* 😛

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Ron Paul, and all libertarians, are idiots and would be far more harmful in power than bush has been.

How? Seriously, how could anyone be more harmful than Bush? I'm not a RP fan (obviously) but I don't see how he or any other libertarian could cause more damage than Dubbya.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Hey now....I happen to be a flaming fundamentalist

Hey, we finally agree on something.

You're definitely "flaming" but flaming what is open to interpretation :laugh:

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

because they don't understand the Constitution and the reasoning behind it.

QFT!

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What would you rather have, leading-edge grassroots campaigning or swiftboat smear ads?

Neither. I'd rather have a man competent to be POTUS, of which Paul is most definitely not.

Nobody gives a damn about a "grassroots" effort. Just ask Howard Dean.

If that were the case, Giuliani nor Thompson would be running. Can't have it both ways.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: daniel1113

I think its great that you disagree with him on some issues. However, as I mentioned earlier, are you honestly going to tell me that there is a better candidate running right now?

I genuinely think that any of the democrats running for office would make better presidents than Ron Paul... I think Mitt Romney and John McCain would also make better presidents, though I'd be hesitant to vote for either myself.

my thoughts at the moment are... clinton > richardson > biden > obama > mccain > not voting > romney > turd sandwich

Well, at least I know where you are coming from. The cornerstone of your political philosophy is not individual liberty, so clearly Ron Paul's message wouldn't appeal to you.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

because they don't understand the Constitution and the reasoning behind it.

QFT!

I think you messed up your quotes... that was my line 🙂

 

[Hacp]

Why democrats shouldn't vote for Ron Paul:
Against Medicare
Against Social Security
Against the Civil War

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Why democrats shouldn't vote for Ron Paul:
Against Medicare
Against Social Security
Against the Civil War

By that standard, democrats should also be against the Constitution. If that's the case, the least the could do is amend it rather than ignoring it...

As for the Civil War bit, you must be joking.

Ron Paul:
I think there would have been a better way. Every other major country of the world was able to get rid of slavery without a Civil War. The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery anyway; the war was fought over unifying and making a strong centralized state. You could have paid for all the slaves and released them and there were proposals like that; that's the way the British did it. Every major country in the world got rid of slavery except us; it was not necessary and there were tariffs involved and many other reasons why the Civil War was fought. But if you read Lincoln carefully you'll realize that Lincoln was not the greatest opponent of slavery and if you don't look at that you are denying a very important part of our history.

He's not against the Civil War, as if that even means anything. He just suggested that it could have been avoided, which is hardly a new viewpoint.

 

[HeXploiT]

The civil war wasn't fought over slavery. After much bloodshed Lincoln decided that so much bloodshed needed a better cause and only then freed the slaves. Lincoln himself stated that if he could have ended the war without freeing one slave he would do so.
Paul is not racist in the slightest in these views. His points about the civil war clearly state that he believes there was a better way to end slavery then by the loss of seven hundred thousand people by violence. he points out that all across the globe in first world nations slavery was wiped out without war.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Hacp
Why democrats shouldn't vote for Ron Paul:
Against Medicare
Against Social Security
Against the Civil War

By that standard, democrats should also be against the Constitution.

Repeat after me, General Welfare.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Repeat after me, General Welfare.

Repeat after me, Communism.

 

[brokendolly]

No way, if I am backing a black sheep I am for Kucinich 100% at this point as he speaks truth to power also.
The whole naive libertarian greedmongering and economics worship thing makes me ill to be honest. (and bores me to no end)

Neither are going to make it, but I think both DK and RP in some alternate reality would have amazing debates.

But get real.

 

[brokendolly]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
Repeat after me, General Welfare.

Repeat after me, Communism.

*extra large sized tinfoil roll for u*

Between the libertarians wanting to privatize everything under the sun, trigger happy neo-cons stuck in the 1950s commie scare looking for an enemy anywhere for silly greed wars, and hypocritical "christian" goosesteppers gunning for the end times no wonder conservatives are in a hole nowadays.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Repeat after me, General Welfare.

States can provide for the general welfare. The agenda behind centralizing it is the inherent abuse of power that comes with. It is far easier to corrupt one state than it is 50.

Irony has it you don't like the Neo-con, but you build them a throne for the ?General Welfare?.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Wow...

I guess this explains why Republicans won't vote for him. 😛

Hey now....I happen to be a flaming fundamentalist republican.😀 Seriously. 🙂

Y'know what... I'm actually WAY to the right of the Rs... A side effect of having been raised in Alaska. Lately I seem to find myself drifting farther and farther away from the party... not because I'm changing but because the Rs are drifting more to the left every day. Anymore I only vote R because the alternative is D. So I hold my nose and hit the button.

That said, Ron Paul is a fucking nut. He has a few interesting positions that I agree with but overall he's a lunatic. Abolishing the CIA... allowing people to carry guns on planes (or at least suggesting that if guns weren't banned on planes that 9/11 wouldn't have happened) and any number of other whacked out statements he's made on the record... He's a nut. His biggest backers are the pot legalization lobby. That's not a good thing.

He's an interesting internet phenomenon but that's where it ends. I'm sure that other candidates (and the two major parties) are watching his campaign with interest in preperation for the '12 elections to see how to manipulate polls, spam message boards and otherwise artificially 'puff up' a candidate... and in that respect he is certainly breaking new ground. But other than that, he's a foot note in history.

Where did you live in Alaska? I live in Southeast.
I might suggest you slow down and look at things from another perspective. First off you do realize there are over a hundred intelligence agencies in the U.S. government do you not? Ron Paul singles out the CIA solely because of it's persistent abuse of power over the decades. Intelligence will not stop with the end of the cia.
On the Guns note; Paul isn't talking about arming citizens he's talking about letting the airlines protect themselves. many companies have armed security all across the U.S. Why shouldn't an airline? Israeli airlines for decades has had two guards armed with rifles on every flight. Guess what? Buses in Israel are constantly hijacked yet Israeli airlines has never once been. Neither do they depend on the government for their security.

Also Paul is very anti drug. Hell I am very anti-drug. I still believe that his America will be a hellovu lot better than the current system. Yes the pot smokers are behind him so what.

I had 27 years in Fairbanks and 6 in Anchorage. And there is nothing you can say to convince me that Ron Paul is NOT a fucking nut. His spam campaign (of which you are a part) will be noted and later perfected by the major parties. Other than that, his place in history will be that of a candidate who managed to raise significant money despite not being able to show a blip on the polls. Once his campaign is dissected and analyzed, the major party candidates (presidential and congressional) will use this info to press their agendas.

In some respects, RP is contributing to the further ruination of american politics.

I disagree with this as well.

Ron Paul has this support for two reasons. One, because the Republicans are killing this country with a dangerous foreign policy, and two, because the Democrats refuse to grow a pair and stand up against it. Instead a vast majority of Democrats voted for the Iraq war, and will continue it. As well, they voted for the Patriot Act, were content with the creation of the DHS, and overall, instead of actually trying to hold the current administration accountable, they more often stand with them. I have not heard ONE Democrat stand up and tell the truth about why 9/11 happened.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good grief, if Paul got elected we'd have a nut for President instead of George Bush.

OMFG! We're doomed! I will go to Canada or one of the Alaskan islands if he gets elected. We just CAN"T have a NUT in office.

:laugh: