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

[Dotini]

It states that it's an ad.

But is it authentic?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Evo]

But is it authentic?

Respectfully,
Steve

How often are ads authentic?

 

[Dotini]

How often are ads authentic?

I'm not always sure.

Yours,
Steve

 

[turbo]

But is it authentic?

Political ads are fiction and spin.

Paul's past newsletters are homophobic, conspiracy-theory diatribes, laced with racism. He has said that 95% of the black males in DC are either criminals or semi-criminal. That is not a claim that a thoughtful, decent person would make.

IMO, the next move is for Paul to come out with an ad that says that he really doesn't think that the US government conspired with gays to down-play the AIDs epidemic. The guy is quite a nut-case, and his past will come back to haunt him over and over again even if he does OK in Iowa.

 

[mheslep]

And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? ...

There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?

 

[Evo]

There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?

How many individuals would help if it was 100% voluntary? What would they do, pay my rent, my doctor and hospital bills, my food, clothing, etc...?

 

[turbo]

There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?

Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.

We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.

Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.

 

[Woopy]

Just listen to Ron Paul talk man. During debates or whenever he is on TV, he speaks his mind and stays on topic with whatever he believes will help the country. I know he would never succumb to lobbyists, unlike the rest of the candidates. That alone would be enough for me to vote for him.

Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.

 

[mheslep]

Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.

We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.

Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.

What do you hope to accomplish with this list of unfounded assertions and strawmen, assuming to speak for all average people? Should I respond "collectivists like Obama are dangerous, IMO", so there?

Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net, he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound, which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual. He also focuses only on the limitations of the federal government. I read opinions forgetting that the federal government is not the only government in these United States.

 

[Evo]

Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.

We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?

 

[Woopy]

We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?

Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.

When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.

 

[turbo]

Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.

I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.

Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.

 

[ThomasT]

Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent?

I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. Hence, it seems necessary for the federal government to maintain an array of at least basic social services and aid for those who, for whatever reasons, can't provide it for themselves.

Paul's being against that sort of federal involvement is, for me, one of the main reasons to not vote for him.

 

[Woopy]

Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.

I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.

Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.

I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.

It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.

 

[Evo]

Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.

Thanks, I was told to give you a break because you were just a kid.

When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.

People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.

 

[Woopy]

Well I would hate to go off-topic as per your rules. But, Ron Paul would get rid of social security in a heartbeat if he could.

Why would you need to pay into social security. I want to know, when you put money in, how is it expected that you will get back more than you put in? Where does this money come from, and how is it going to work on a large scale?

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway. And yes I know it's not a libertarian society, but atleast ron paul wouldn't have the gall to invade another country to force upon other regions of the world to have the same government as us, unlike previous presidents.

 

[ThomasT]

Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net ...

From reading a list of his positions on various issues I got the impression that that is what he, eventually, would like to see happen.

... he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound ...

That's how anybody wanting to abolish the federal social safety net would have to start.

... which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual.

I agree with you that lots of changes can and should be made. What I fear from an extreme libertarian like Paul is that, imo, his ultimate goal would be to abolish the federal aid system(s) altogether. Which, imo, would do much more harm than good.

 

[lpetrich]

All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.

If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.

Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?

Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News

He authored the 2003 federal partial-birth abortion ban. He supported another federal law to give legal rights to infants born alive after failed abortions, and one that acknowledged unborn children as victims if they are hurt or killed in a violent crime.

So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."

 

[Woopy]

What do you mean statist on one issue? He's a statist on most issues.

Edit: why does fox new's motto say ''Fair and Balanced''?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think the idea is that if you tax rich people, then they won't invest in new companies and the end result will be fewer jobs. If I'm right about that, then the obvious solution to our country's woes is to give all of the money to a single individual. That should create the most jobs.

 

[DavidSnider]

All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.

If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.

Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?

Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News

So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."

Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.

It's fine to disagree with him, but at least disagree on his actual positions rather than a caricature of him.

 

[Evo]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.

You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?

They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.



http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.

I'll help you pack.

 

[Woopy]

You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?

They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.



http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html

You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.

Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.

 

[Evo]

You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.

Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.

Look at the taxes for the social benefits.

I thought you didn't want the government taking care of you, now you want that. Why would Ron Paul have any say in Norway's government? What on Earth are you going on about? You think the US is trying to change the way Norway's government runs things?

 

[D H]

I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.

Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.

It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.

Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".

 

[turbo]

Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".

True. My wife and I live within our means. Maxing out on SS contributions for a few decades does not mean that we are "rich". Staying debt-free and living within our means has left us comfortable. We never spent money on vacations and "luxury" goods.

Very few of the vociferous anti-tax people on the right can claim that, IMO. Even without my wife's income, I was in the top 2% of earners for many years, and we socked away money. If the US gov't had increased the marginal rates for income tax, it wouldn't have fazed me a bit. The anti-tax nuts hollering about apocryphal predictions are bomb-tossers. Ron Paul is out on the margins, once you get into sections of the electorate that actually produce wealth and earn decent livings. We deserve better in our candidates.

 

[Woopy]

Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.


Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".

It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.

To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"

And I don't want freebies when I'm in a country that has libertarian upbringings. The government was supposed to be small...the fed would of been set up at the beginning if it was intended there be a national bank. Maybe the Norweigan people want socialism? Let Norway determine Norway, Iraq determine Iraq, and the USA be the USA without imposing USA on Iraq or Norway. Maybe I just like the climate of Norway and that's why I want to live there?

The government in the USA turned into something that it was never meant to be by the founders.There is a very specific document that clearly lays out what the federal government can and cannot do, and yet it is just ignored.

Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.

 

[turbo]

Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.

It might be a good idea if you could support that claim. Paul is a Federalist, not a Libertarian, IMO. He would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because those impinged on the "rights" of southern states to suppress the rights of minorities to have access to voting and public access to public amenities. His newsletters are out there for all to see. He is not fit to be a candidate for the Presidency.

 

[Evo]

It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.

Oh please. I paid the maximum for the last 20+ years, I'm not rich.

To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"

Ok, that is a blatant falsification of what was being discussed. We were discussing Norway's social programs.

 

[Woopy]

He would repeal the act because it impinged on the business's rights to choose who they want to serve. Why should the government tell you that you must serve every customer if you are a private enterprise?

You are eluding that he is racist, when it is so painstakingly obvious that he isn't. How could someone who is a major supporter (I mean his entire campaign is based on this) of individual civil liberties. Racism is a form of collectivism, and he is not a collectivist.

 

[Dotini]

Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

He lost, even though he stacked the caucus with his supporters, which are mostly "independants".

Read here, he's gone, which may not be so good, IMO. If the GOP chose Paul. analysts are saying it would be a landslide for Obama. It appears (from the mews) will be seeinhg Paul going down the tubes.

Santorum is scary, he has the Evangelist vote.

Many of Paul's voters identified themselves as independents, which may prove problematic for the libertarian-leaning congressman as the nomination calendar moves ahead to contests that are open only to Republican voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...es-fierce-battle-conservatives-065415792.html

 

[lpetrich]

Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.

However, that can justify a heck of a lot of statism. What counts as "liberties"? It's not as self-evident as it might seem.

Furthermore, one can use a lot of anti-welfare-state and anti-statism rhetoric against even a minimal night-watchman state. One can argue that government protection is a form of welfare for those who are too lazy to protect themselves, for those who want to be protected with other people's money and other people's lives. One can argue that individuals are much better at protecting themselves than governments are. One can argue that private-sector protection is much better than government protection. Private-sector protection like vigilante posses and volunteer militias and hired guards and mercenaries. One can argue that government protection has crowded out potentially-superior private-sector protection initiatives. One can argue that government protection makes creates dependency by making people dependent on government. Etc.

Back to Ron Paul, he certainly scored an impressive performance in Iowa, only a little behind Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the neck-and-neck front runners. But in 2008, he did much better in the caucuses than in the primaries proper, and what happened then is likely to happen this year. So the big test will be how well he does in New Hampshire.

 

[turbo]

Paul won't fly in NH. It should be a Romney blow-out with Santorum a distant second. Even with Gingrich as his wingman attacking Romney, Santorum won't fare well in NH. Just my opinion, but I think it's well-founded. New Hampshire voters tend to be conservatives, but they are not evangelicals, like you might find in the South and the heartland.