Ron Paul

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2007 7:24 AM GMT
    Is anyone a supporter of Ron Paul? I am completely torn about him. I appreciate a libertarian approach to social issues, but would that mean people are not protected? Likewise, environmental issues are a concern. Does being fiscally a republican (which only ron paul actually is) increase or decrease our capabilities to interact with our world and community? Could a local government meet our needs better than a federal one?

    What do you guys think? Of course there is a lot I have been trying to be thoughtful about, but I cannot express it all. Let's develop the conversation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2007 1:09 PM GMT
    Ron Paul is libertarian when it's convenient, but he's actually a fundie Jebus nutter with a theocratic agenda. As much as I agree with him on certain issues, I can't in good conscience vote for a man who would bring about the return of sodomy laws and back-alley abortions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2007 8:33 PM GMT
    I don't see how either of those apply to him. In fact in the recent FL debate he said he would not pass an amendment banning gay marriage. And in fact called it ludicrous. He also said that the Federal gov't should have no jurisdiction in abortion whatsoever. So despite him being a Christian, and personally against abortion, he does protect personal liberties.

    If you have stuff that supports it, I'd genuinely like to know though.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2007 10:11 PM GMT
    Wow, most dead topic ever. Maybe I should have asked: what type of underwear do you think Ron Paul wears!?!?!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 30, 2007 10:16 PM GMT
    In theory I like a lot about Ron Paul, but the reality is that I live in Texas, which makes my supporting him problematic. In some states the federal government goes further than the state does with respect to civil rights. It took federal intervention for it to be legal for me to have butt sex here.

    It's a bit simplistic to say, but more or less Ron Paul is good for gays in blue states, but bad for gays in red states. Ironically, more red state gays, especially politically unaware ones, may support him anyway (by not understanding the full consequences).
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Oct 30, 2007 10:41 PM GMT
    "He also said that the Federal gov't should have no jurisdiction in abortion whatsoever. So despite him being a Christian, and personally against abortion, he does protect personal liberties."

    Actually, that sounds like states' rights argument: the federal government should not be able to control state laws regarding abortion -- which in practical terms, opens the door for states to make abortion illegal.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Oct 30, 2007 10:48 PM GMT
    Well, I can't say why everyone isn't responding, but I suspect that a large part of it is due to the primary structure. In the vast majority of states, the only people who can vote in a political party's primary are registered members of that party. There aren't a huge number of gay registered Republicans, who are the most likely to be paying attention to the Republican primary candidates at this point. From what I've read of Ron Paul elsewhere, I'll definitely consider voting for him in the main election if he emerges from the Republican primaries, but as a registered Independent, it hasn't yet felt like it's worth my time to substantially research the policy positions of any of the candidates in any of the parties. I'll wait to find out who my choices will be on the only ballot I get to cast, and research them extensively then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2007 4:46 PM GMT
    Ron Paul is a double-edge sword. He is all about state rights and powers. He is pro-life and thinks abortion should be illegal, but believes the federal government cannot make that decision. He supports both the individual right to choose as well as the states right to exert control over their residents.

    Personally, I think he would be perfect as president because of the fact that he is an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. Not like pre-WWII, but more like pre-NeoCon. His explanation for 9-11 is the same one MANY of us (Libertarians) have thought for a long time... blow-back due to a failed foreign policy put in place some 30 years ago.

    And the GOOD part about the primary structure is that you can always change your political party.. meaning you can switch (like I plan to) from one party (Libertarian) to another (Republican) just to vote for who you want.

    The BIG problem with Ron Paul are the people who follow him religiously and are spreading violence and intolerance in the name of the Ron Paul R[LOVE]ution. They're as bad as the LaRouche nut jobs standing outside the T. At least Ron Paul isn't an anti-Semite.
  • MusclesMAn

    Posts: 3

    Oct 31, 2007 5:20 PM GMT
    Is it wise to accept or reject a candidate on the basis on a single position they may hold? I think Ron's position of never voting for something except as allowed by the Constitution is something all elected officials should follow, but why is Ron the only one?

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the Patriot Act.
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.

    He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

    Here's an overview of Ron Paul:

    Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[156] reflects both his medical degree and his contrarian insistence on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[157][158] Paul adheres to the economic philosophy of the Austrian School of economics, which among other things, holds that government control over the money supply causes economic inefficiency and monetary instability. Paul has authored several books on the subject. He has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall.[159]

    Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[160] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[7][8] He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks,[161] but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[160][162] Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, and presidential autonomy; he supports free trade, rejecting membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[29] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

    Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[163] He has pledged never to raise taxes,[157][48] and states he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget. He has stated that abolishing the individual income tax, which collects about 42 percent of government revenue, would be possible without any additional source of federal income by cutting spending to the 2000 level. He has also stated that we could quickly pay off our foreign debt and return our nation to solvency, if we further reduced spending to the 1992 level.[164][165]

    Paul would like to substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[166] Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service,[164] the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission,[167] calling them unnecessary bureaucracies.

    Paul opposes inflation, viewing it as an underhanded form of "taxation" due to the fact that it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He said in one presidential debate that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, are superior to fiat money, but says he does not advocate going back to the gold standard.[168] Rather, he wishes to legalize gold and silver as legal tender, as called for in the Constitution, so that gold-backed notes issued from the private markets can compete with fiat Federal Reserve notes; this, he believes, will help restrain inflation as well as limit government spending and the expansion of government (since government would be deprived of the income derived from inflation).[169] He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for a few reasons, arguing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply,[170] and that the Federal Reserve allows government to grow unchecked, and involve itself in areas he believes it should not be involved in, by inflating the money supply when funds are needed to accomodate government spending.

    Paul supports states' rights, gun ownership, habeas corpus for political detainees,[72] jury nullification rights,[171] and a Constitutional amendment allowing voluntary and unofficial school prayer;[172] he also favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security,[173] expanding the free market in health care, recognizing private property rights for pollution prevention,[174] and increasing ballot access.[175] Paul opposes the draft, the federal War on Drugs, socialized health care, the welfare state,[176] foreign aid, judicial activism, federal death penalties,[177], federal regulation of marriage, of education,[178] and any bans on internet gambling.[179] He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[118][119] He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption. Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion",[180][181] and believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[177][182]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2007 6:07 PM GMT

    I would say that it is extremely fair to make a decision based on one position, if you feel that position is the most important thing that matters to you. I view voting as an extension of individual will. Most people don't vote for a candidate based on what they think is good for everyone around them, and for good reason. You only really know what's good for yourself; no matter how much you think you know about what may be good for others around you, you only know very little. Voting for a candidate based on such specious information would be irrational, if not downright silly.

    If a voter feels that the issue that is most going to affect her in the race is the war, then she should vote based on her feelings about the war and the positions of the candidate. Likewise, if another voter thinks that issues pertaining to equal rights are the most important ones, then he should vote based on those.

    None of this is to say that people can't or won't vote based on numerous issues--and I would contend that most people do since most people have lists of individual priorities, each of which has a certain utility. But those people are no better or worse as voters than other voters, assuming voters with equal and developed information (a rash assumption, I know).

    As to Ron Paul, I find libertarian philosophy to be worth very little. I'm a strong supporter of government action to correct wrongs, because market failure in the collective market of ideas and actions exists in many places. Sometimes raising taxes is a necessary, as is voting to authorize war. While you may characterize Mr. Paul's foreign policy as "isolationist...Not like pre-WWII, but more like pre-NeoCon," mtnclimber, his foreign policy is very much like Pre-WWII. If we're talking true "pre-NeoCon" then we're talking about the time right after the Vietnam War when Americans were hesitant to become anymore involved in foreign affairs. Remember that the Cambodian genocide occurred right after Vietnam, at least in part because the United States was unwilling to step in to end the horrors that were occurring because we were in a state of isolation (somewhat). Even at that time we still maintained an aggressive stance, if somewhat less than before, vis-a-vis the USSR. I'm not sure how that can be characterized as isolationist. It seems from reading about Mr. Paul's foreign policy ideas that he's very much in the pre-WWII isolationist camp.

    I just don't think Paul's a realistic candidate, or even a good candidate, at least not based on my political ideology.
  • MikemikeMike

    Posts: 6932

    Oct 31, 2007 6:51 PM GMT
    I'm pretty sure Ron Paul and Ru Paul wear different underwear.
  • ang2serra

    Posts: 15

    Oct 31, 2007 7:46 PM GMT
    I'm thoroughly Independent when it comes to elections. I support Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They are the ONLY candidates who are not part of the Corporate Party (Dems and Repubs both). While I may not agree with EVERY position he takes, he has an understanding of the "pink elephants in the room" that plague us as a nation. The Federal Reserve racket (Economy), the military-industrial-congressional complex (unending wars and botched Foreign Policy), the so-called Free Trade agreements that have decimated our industrial capability to take care of ourselves, the War on Drugs (prison-industrial complex)and our frakked up healthcare.

    I would much rather have someone as President who will tackle these big issues in some meaningful way instead of ignoring them like every other candidate does. I can overlook his views about abortion which is just a wedge issue anyways. Granted it is important to our sisters, however, grievous harm is being perpetuated against all of us on the larger issues. This race is all about Corporatism vs Liberty. And guess which side has the deck stacked in it's favor.

    Educate yourselves. The internet is the bane of the Establishment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 2:16 AM GMT
    That is good and it is nice to hear from some more supporters.

    I get the feeling the government cannot be trusted to right social wrongs.

    My question is what role do we play in the united nations? I feel like Paul would pull us out from that. And the UN, or a body like it, is the way to stop things like Cambodian genocides.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 2:17 AM GMT
    i agree with bionerd that the primary system is an issue here. not living in a swing state, nor an early primary state, i feel we get short changed on many important stages of the election process. there is really no campaigning here -- just fundraising, and that tends to involve only the leading names. So Ron Paul is a bit of a mystery. i have a strong inclination towards libertarian candidates and ideals, but ron paul is simply an unknown figure for me. icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 3:39 AM GMT
    would totally watch some videos on youtube. And sadly, I will be left out of the important decision making. I do think NH could swing for him bc of his strong libertarian stance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 12:30 PM GMT
    Not a big fan of Ron Paul. I have some libertairan leanings, but I'm pretty sure if he got elected (which he never will) it wouldn't be a good thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 9:25 PM GMT
    The reason I think it would be a good thing is we have congress and the supreme court to balance him out. And I think Ron Paul would allow for actual checks and balances, unlike bush now or Hillary in the future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 9:34 PM GMT
    I like Ron Paul, although I disagree with him on abortian and other issues.

    He's a better choice than Hillary. The hardest part of the 08 election will be choosing the lesser evil.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2007 10:12 PM GMT

    The UN was ineffective at stopping the Rwandan genocide, the Baltic genocide (it took NATO for that), the Kurdish genocide, and is currently not effectively stopping the Sudanese genocide. I strongly believe that there is a place for the UN, but does it really look like it can be as effective at stopping genocides? Obviously even sovereign states aren't always effective at stopping genocides (the US sat by as Tutsis were slaughtered en-masse), but they arguably have as much of a place as if not more than the UN in conflict resolution and the righting of international wrongs.

    I'm absolutely certain Ron Paul would attempt to pull the United States out of the UN.

    And while government has absolutely been responsible in upholding social wrongs (slavery, the genocide of Native Americans), it has also been a major force for positive social change against the will of popular opinion in the face of gridlock (Brown v Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Emancipation Proclamation). Government has a mixed record, but there's absolutely a place for government intervention in both society and economics. That's something libertarians, including Ron Paul, are simply too obstinate on for me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2007 6:37 AM GMT
    i do have major problems with all that for sure.

    I just am annoyed that we often will only intervene if it for our own interests. How many have we killed in iraq because we wanted power in the middle east? And what are we doing in myanmar right now? Heck, we cannot even pass non-binding resolutions to decry a genocide from years ago simply because we want to launch bombs from turkey. It is insane. We are living in a country that is a flipping nuthouse. And I don't know if Ron Paul, or anyone can make it better or worse. I just know things have not been working for a long time now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2007 6:52 AM GMT

    You and I are certainly in full agreement there. It's an unfortunate part of living in a system of international anarchy that we allow horrible things to happen in countries unless our immediate interests are at stake. But I often wonder whether a moralist foreign policy is at all tenable in the long run, given limited resources and manpower (especially since the Iraq War was at least partially based on moralist, neo-con ideological justifications). As a student of international relations this is something I constantly wrestle with. I just don't have faith that Ron Paul has the right ideas to fix any of it, nor if he won would he even have the political power to fix any of it since he would still be operating under a Republican or Democratic House and Senate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 02, 2007 3:55 PM GMT
    Well, Dennis Kucinich it is. Who doesn't want to have the first elf President? Or as I call him "Uncle Pockets"
  • SpartanJock

    Posts: 199

    Nov 08, 2007 4:23 PM GMT
    I whole hearted believe that the Federal government should be a force that can correct social injustice, and should not have a laissez-faire attitude (at home or abroad). While this is a federalist democracy allowing states some sovereignty, I don't think that all decisions should be left to the states.

    The current backlash against the federal government is due mainly to the over-reaching policies of the current administration. This could be corrected by more involvement of the general populace in the political process. We are just as responsible for where our country is as the government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2007 1:14 AM GMT
    I'm a Republican and I oppose him. I hope I don't have to vote for him next year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 08, 2008 3:34 PM GMT
    A-Paul-ed: Gay Libertarians face off over Ron Paul
    John Barclay, The Advocate

    It's not the most in-depth and enlightening article but....