Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[ThomasT]

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

That's how I thought about Paul for a while. But my opinion of Paul changed a bit when I went to a website that had all the candidates positions on various issues (from debates, speeches, interviews, etc.) going back a few years. It seems, from what I read, that his judgement is somewhat tainted by his theistic religious views, in line with what Evo posted in reply to you.

But I'm still curious as to the real reason why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul. Which one(s) of his positions is (are) the deal breaker(s)?

 

[DoggerDan]

I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state. A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.

Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.

 

[Freye]

He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution see my previous post on this

Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

 

[turbo]

well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.

The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.

 

[Proton Soup]

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

looks like the source of a lot of this is articles at lewrockwell. and of the couple that I've perused, it's a little different from your characterization. they're more of the standard libertarian views of the federal government exceeding its constitutional mandate.

 

[Proton Soup]

The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.

so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?

 

[turbo]

so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?

How does Ron look in a short skirt?

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

 

[Freye]

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

Proton Soup is right; although he is clearly pro-christian, his point is that he wants the state to tolerate and accept religion, instead of being what he sees as "hostile" towards it. He may be a nut when it comes to religion, but he's a libertarian, and that means he's strongly against using the government to promote an agenda. So no, he would not "want to change the government to fulfil his religious beliefs."

 

[Evo]

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

 

[ThomasT]

I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state.

If we vote enough religious fundamentalists into public office, then maybe they won't be practicing what the constitution preaches, even though of course they'll say that they are.

A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.

People have the right to base their beliefs and judgements on theistic religious doctrine, but not, imo, as public officials. Basing judgements regarding public policy on religious beliefs betrays the sort of willful ignorance that prompts me to screen out of consideration such candidates.

Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.

How do we judge the success or failure of a president's term of office? Was Bush a good president? Can we point to at least of couple of considerations where his judgement was apparently based on his theistic religious orientation? How about various religious governors and state and national congress persons? We've got lots of silly laws and public practices based on New and Old Testament doctrines.

For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.

 

[phinds]

... For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.

Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts which is really saying something.

 

[chiro]

The one thing I like about Ron Paul (among other things) is consistency and specificity.

The consistency comes from the fact that he sticks to his principles. He does not change his stance to match the flavor of the month, and that gets a lot of respect for me. This character trait shows that he walks his talk: it takes a real person to take a stand and stand up for what the believe in especially in the midst of any kind of negative response which he was endured a lot.

The specificity is something that separates him from his contenders. When he states his view and responds to questions or ridicule whether it be in the form of a debate, or some other event like an interview on TV or radio, he actually gives specific information to support his argument. When he is either asked nicely or challenged, he delves into various data to support his argument which spans topics from history to economics.

One other thing I like is the view he promotes of letting people have the right to say what they want and to practice lifestyles that do not hurt other people in the way that they want to. One important facet of free speech for example is to let anyone voice their views no matter how insane you may think they are. You can't make exceptions and remain unhypocritical. The fact that some groups want some things to be completely taboo, while having other things being acceptable is completely hypocritical, ignorant, and generally stupid: if you want what the constitutions regards as free speech, then you need to respect everyone's right for that no matter how inane or ridiculous that speech is. This demonstrates that he is really serious about his stance about being a constitutionalist and not changing his stance just to be politically correct.

With regard to him being covered and whether that implies anything about how good a candidate he is, make up your own damn mind. If you use the TV as a basis for making the majority of your life decisions, then IMO you need to broaden your sources for information and exercise more critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts ...

Yes, from the poll data that I've seen this seems to be true.

... which is really saying something.

It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.

This is understandable in that it's (from what I've read, and in my personal experience) more acceptable to say that you're Christian than that you believe in ghosts.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want, for whatever reasons. But that doesn't make what they believe right, especially if their beliefs are based on socialization and intellectual and emotional comfort (which is the basis of willful ignorance) rather than modern standards of rationality and critical thinking.

Ron Paul seems to be a man of integrity, and intelligent and knowledgeable in many areas. However, I don't want to vote for a candidate who I think might base an important public decision on his/her religious orientation, regardless of what most Americans say they believe.

 

[DuncanM]

So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?

No, I don't think he'll win.

However, I do like the fact he is a libertarian, and he has proposed some drastic measures for dealing with the economy. Many of these drastic measures have gotten him the "zany" label but drastic measures are exactly what are necessary. The establishment needs a shake-up. (Isn't that how America was founded in the first place?)

Seriously, everybody else is pretty much same old same old. They are all afraid to state that drastic measures are required. And anybody who does is automatically disqualified as being "zany". This ensures that the right thing will never be done:

The right thing to do is "Policy A".
Focus all media attention on politicians who promote any policy except "Policy A".
Label anybody who promotes "Policy A" a nutty fruitcake.
Ensure that "Policy A" is never implemented and policies that created the mess in the first place continue like business as usual. Or until the country declares bankruptcy.

Let's be honest: even if Ron Paul is not the right person, things cannot go on in the same manner. Like Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different outcomes.

 

[phinds]

It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

 

[Proton Soup]

How does Ron look in a short skirt?

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

i expect he has chicken legs.

whatever happened to Ross Perot?

 

[Galteeth]

Honestly, the hardest thing last time around was getting all the younger supporters to register in time for the primary. I think Ron Paul does have a constituency, however one that is definitely not in the majority. One thing is that Paul polls better in a general election against Obama then he does in the republican primary. A lot of the GOP primary voters are pretty authoritarian.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

(The poll for the republican primaries had Perry at 29%, Romney at 17%, Paul at 13%, Bachmann at 10%)There is a dedicated group of supporters, and this they are very motivated. The grass roots organizing is good. I think it is a mischaracterization to say it is meant to give the impression of larger numbers. Especially in 2007, it was impossible to get any media attention. Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."

Also, it really was all grassroots. I remember standing in times square on I think it was new year's. There were also groups of Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. One of the younger Obama guys came up and asked how much Ron Paul was paying us. I thought it was a joke, but apparently some of the guys in that group were getting payed for being there holding up signs.(This was in the background of a news broadcast.) I explained nobody here was getting payed and he was really shocked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes.

 

[Galteeth]

I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes.

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

EDIT: And to tie this back to Ron Paul, yes, there are a disproportionate amount of (illlogical) conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

Not to nitpick, but I wasn't the one who made the overly general reference to UFOs and ghosts.

If by ghost people mean the souls of the dead, then this is generally linked to religious or similar beliefs. If one believes in an afterlife, ghosts are just one step away.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."

Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.

 

[Galteeth]

Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.

As far as impact, 1988 and 2007 were very different. Paul didn't spark a popular grassroots movement in 1988 or become a household name. Different time, different situation. Also different mediums of communication. The internet has made a huge difference in terms of how ideas are able to propagate without support from corporate media.

 

[phinds]

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

Actually, I don't think you are nitpicking at all, I think you have made a perfectly legitimate point and I WAS sloppy in my use of terminology. You DO, obviously, understand my intent correctly, but I thank you for pointing out my error. It's the belief in little green men that gets my hackles up.

 

[ThomasT]

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.

 

[phinds]

I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.

Sad to say, the evidence I see suggests you are right.

 

[fleem]

If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.

 

[Freye]

If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles. However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul. Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable. As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference. Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.

Ron Paul is not for banning abortion at the federal level, he has said on several occasions that he would leave the decision in the hands of individual states to decide.

 

[ThomasT]

If we spend all our money making foreign investors rich from our interest payments, then we won't have enough money for food, self defense, providing free police forces for our enemies, or assuring the health of the drug black market. Ron Paul is the sole candidate that realizes these principles.

I'm not sure if he's the only one who realizes them, but he seems to be the only one advocating what I consider to be the obviously best courses of action wrt certain issues.

However, if you feel banning partial birth abortion will collapse the infrastructure of the United States far faster than these things, then by all means don't vote for Ron Paul.

Ok, nice sarcasm. But there are a few of Paul's positions that I actually disagree with ... eg., his desire to eradicate all forms of government welfare, his position on a federal death penalty, and his advocacy of prayer in schools.

On the other hand, his positions on the war on drugs, protecting our borders, minimizing military engagements in other countries, immigration, gun possession by US citizens, etc. (what did I leave out?) seem most wise to me.

Rather, spend your time proclaiming that he is unelectable.

Yeah, it makes no sense at all to not vote for someone simply because the 'polls' say he won't win, or to vote for someone simply because the polls say he's the likely winner.
Unfortunately, I think that's why a lot of people vote how they do. And in doing so, their vote really doesn't matter.

But, imho, if one votes for a Republican or a Democrat, then their vote doesn't matter anyway.

I look at it this way: can a US president, especially a Ron Paul sort of president, really direct the course of US governmental actions? I don't know, but I don't think so. Ultimately, it's the US congress that's responsible for the course of events, because it controls the purse strings. And the US congress is firmly aligned with the status quo. Which means that even if Paul got elected, there would be no abandonment of the disastrous War on Drugs, or any significant changes in any of the policies that the US congress has aligned itself with. It's going to be, for the most part, 'business as usual', because that's what the US congress has a vested interest in.

As everyone knows the most effective way to use your vote in a solid red or solid blue state is to cast it red or blue--only then will you make a real difference.

Imo, the only way for an individual voter to make a difference is to not vote for a Republican or a Democrat.

But of course, that's not going to happen. We're far to ignorant, collectively, to buck the status quo. Probably Mitt Romney, or some other more or less 'centrist' candidate, will get the GOP nomination, and then he'll lose, closely, to Obama. It's all so predictable.

Besides, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us this far, we might as well finish the job.

More nice sarcasm. Well, I share your frustration. Who knows, I might end up voting for Paul. Or maybe Nader if he runs ... just on principle, because I admire him and his message, and I don't think he's corrupted, or Paul either for that matter, yet.

More likely though, I probably just won't vote.

 

[fleem]

Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.

 

[Dotini]

(what did I leave out?)

Sound money, obedience to the Constitution, paying off and staying out of debt. Sounds simple, but you seldom hear of it anymore.

Rand Paul, Ron's son, has been elected Senator from Kentucky. When politicians figure out most people want sound, sustainable public policy first and social engineering second, they will vote for more folks like the Pauls. Then the Congress will restore its own proper Constitutional functions, such as the sole power to declare war, abrogated to the Imperial Presidency so many decades ago.

Many otherwise very smart people are put off by Paul's Libertarian ideas on personal liberties, state's rights and personal views such as abortion, evolution, etc. To them I would suggest prioritizing massive life/death issues for our civilization such as War and Debt a little bit higher than whether you do or do not attend church, etc. If it helps, you can recall that Dr Paul is baby doctor with thousands of deliveries to his credit - how can such an individual be anything other than personally pro-life? I'm personally all in favor of a woman's right to choose, but if our nation is bankrupt, spending borrowed billions fighting penniless tribesmen all over the world, there are fewer resources to support whatever domestic interests may float your individual boat.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[lisab]

Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.

And, good scientists that we are, we should know not to put much trust into straw polls .

 

[Evo]

Strange how such an unelectable candidate can win the California straw poll: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/

Its also really weird how a handful of losers can donate so much to his campaign (compare his fundraising earnings over the last few years to the media favorites)

And bizarre how an unelectable candidate does better in Gallup polls than John McCain did the previous election.

Ah well. As the good scientists we are, we know that such facts should be ignored in light of what the media tells us.

... makes you wonder what would happen if the media actually learned about his existence.

The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.

 

[Dotini]

The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.

Okay, straw polls, etc. are fake. Maybe even national polls have an element of fraud. Is there a better way to determine who should be a candidate or an elected official?

Paul's campaign claims military donations lead the Republican pack at a whopping 71% for Paul the peacenik. Is this also a misleading or meaningless statistic?

http://www.dailypaul.com/179080/if-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Galteeth]

The straw polls, etc... are BOGUS, as in FAKE. I posted an article on the fraud earlier in this thread.

They aren't fake, and what you posted about isn't fraud. What you were referencing is that supporters of ron paul realized that with his passionate supporter base and the organization of the grassroots, they could do well at straw polls. Straw polls are not a neutral sample, but rather a sample of people who are politically enthusiastic. They may not be representative of the GOP elecorate, but they aren't fake. I don't know what you're talking about with regards to fraud. Encouraging people to attend and vote in polls isn't fraud. Fraud would be something illegal or in violation of the pol rules, i.e, manipulating voting machines or interfering with other candidates' votes.