Troubling Ron Paul Votes

I think a lot of this is a proxy for the debate over whether the founding notions of federalism are still relevant. This is, frankly, a normative discussion where one person's opinion isn't any more valid than another person's. Arguments about the constitution and whether states should have more power and whether there should be an FBI are policy decisions that don't really have ground-shaking constitutional relevance.

Then again, a discussion about whether we should still have federalism (not just pleading for horses and against the IRS) would be fruitful.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
He would do what congress told him to do..which, indirectly is what the people would want him to do.

Spacedoubt, thanks for the reply. I can see you're fixated on Paul. That's fine, you're able to attribute some type of logic in his favor.

That being said, the quote above is why you, and/or millions of others, are going to be in for a big dissapointment. There is no leadership in a walking, talking constitution. The man wants, and has said he wants in certain words, an inert presidency. He will make the changes he sees fit, but as for actually doing anything else, it won't happen.

That means darfur, policy, and many other things that shall crop up for a LEADER, he will respond by being neutral. He can't even make a decision about horses. It will be a sad state of affairs, and entirely unamerican.

If RP gets to the presidential 1 on 1 debates, prepare for him to be ripped to shreds.

[edit on 2007/12/3 by SteveR]

Hey SteveR

Thanks for the civil discourse..

Maybe we just have different definitions of "Leader".

Sometimes, you can lead by example.
I would think that a non-interventionalist version of US foreign policy, would be a fine example for the world. Pretty obvious our foreign policy over the last few decades isn't making us any friends.

Or voting against tax increases. always. That's another fine example of leadership. Not following the pack.

Or by voting on principle..and not giving in to those who may want to sway you.
That takes guts.

That takes a leader, IMO.

On the other hand. Let's say he gets elected. And like you say, not much happens.
With the current trend of bigger, badder, in your face government.
Nothing...is a good thing. And the average American learns something about the constitution in the process. How could 4 years of that hurt?

I'd like to see "Dr. NO" in the Whitehouse..Or should I say, "President Doctor No"..

[edit on 3-12-2007 by spacedoubt]

Hmm I cant see how four years of a lame duck president would benefit anyone . With the art of compromise long lost amongst the pages of history the US government would be paralysed and would cease to function . It matters very little anyway the establishment chews and spits out people like Ron for breakfast. Ron Paul mania has a long way to go yet when he doesn't win the nomination I think I will take a holiday because his supporters will go nuts on the boards.

xpert11,


Some ducks are better off lame.
Some ducks are hobbled into lameness. Of course, that might happen to a president that has all of these "new" ideas.

Next step would be to elect open minded Senators, and reps.

Gotta start somewhere.
You sound like you may have given up, or in, to the status quo.

Sorry spacedoubt but you seem a very unrealistic view of things .
How do you expect to elect a Libertarian Congress in the space of two to four years ?
All great change starts at the grass roots level and not at the top of the pyramid. You have to elect people at the local government level who aren't corporate puppets and go from there .
How can a duck be better off if the US government fails to function ?

I dislike the status qua but I am no more convinced that Ron is the USA saviour then I am that Jesus or his band of followers are.

reply to post by xpert11


Then I strongly encourage you to sit down with an open mind, throw away your preconceived notions, and actually read about both Ron Paul and the Bible. I think you'll be surprised. If you want a reading list, I can certainly provide one for you.

(Your post finally made me register after months of trolling)

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by spacedoubt

 

Ron Paul is a social darwinist. There will be no compassionate conversatism

I agree, and have said the same thing in another thread. Most Libertarians are social Darwinists. That means no government programs for the disabled, the mentally challenged or the mentally ill; no safety net for the most vulnerable people in society. No medicare or medicaid. No social security. Instead, everyone must struggle for existence, and the fittest survive. This is an understandable position if you are young, strong, healthy, above average in intelligence; in short if you believe you will end up at the top of the heap. If you believe you are, and will always be, invincible.

Many Christians don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. It puzzles me why they would support social Darwinism.

Originally posted by Drikanna
Then I strongly encourage you to sit down with an open mind, throw away your preconceived notions, and actually read about both Ron Paul and the Bible.

Err I already have a fair idea of Ron platform and agree with him sometimes and other times I disagree with him. but none of that changes the fact that other then withdrawing from Iraq Ron couldn't implement his policy's without becoming a dictator.

It seems that you don't understand the difference between having an open mind and being realistic. As an Atheist I have no interest in the Bible enough said .

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by Drikanna
Then I strongly encourage you to sit down with an open mind, throw away your preconceived notions, and actually read about both Ron Paul and the Bible.

Err I already have a fair idea of Ron platform and agree with him sometimes and other times I disagree with him. but none of that changes the fact that other then withdrawing from Iraq Ron couldn't implement his policy's without becoming a dictator.

True. But I think we can also agree the president has more power than a congressman.

Ron Paul also voted against giving a medal to Rosa Park. It sounds pretty crazy that a person would do such a thing. But when you listen to him explain his reason it simply makes sense.

Longer version:
ca.youtube.com...

Short 1 min version:
ca.youtube.com...

[edit on 4-12-2007 by NuclearHead]

Huh ?
Nuclearhead I don't follow your point about the president has more power than a congressman. Going by the US constitution the president powers are limited or spouse to be kept in check by Congress .
Do you think that Ron could implement many of his policy's via executive orders without violating the US constitution ?

Cheers xpert11.

Originally posted by Sestias
I agree, and have said the same thing in another thread. Most Libertarians are social Darwinists. That means no government programs for the disabled, the mentally challenged or the mentally ill; no safety net for the most vulnerable people in society. No medicare or medicaid. No social security. Instead, everyone must struggle for existence, and the fittest survive.

Churches, charities, and people took care of all of this up until the 30's when welfare was introduced, so I don't really buy what you've said. The government has failed to do a good job of providing for the needy, and only made the problem much worse in the long run.

Even this day and age, you do not have to look very far to find a person who has grown up in a society when there was no government welfare, or very little government welfare. I bet some would even bother to tell us how it's done.

Also, Ron Paul wants to phase those programs out, staying true to the entitlements that have already been promised.

In terms of rights, the government has no right to rob us in order to help others. Our help should come willingly.

Also, these programs will eventually be bankrupt if you keep things at the status quo. Social Security is going to go first. People on welfare only talk about it getting worse, their welfare money is buying less and less for them month after month.

It's just not working.

Also to add: If your state wants to have it's own welfare program, nothing stopping it under Ron Paul's vision for America. Just like there is nothing stopping your state from having it's own department of education type deal.
[edit on 4-12-2007 by Novise]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by Novise]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by Novise]

This is getting to be a great discussion!
Props to Semper for starting the thread, and setting the tone for civility.

First, lets address this "Libertarian" thing.
Ron Paul has never held office as anything other than a Republican.
He ran on a third party Libertarian Ticket once, he didn't win.
He does however, have Libertarian leanings.
A full blown Libertarian might want an open door policy at our borders, but not this guy.

Some other points:

On Social security:
He doesn't want to kill the program. We're killing it now. By shoveling money from it, into other programs.
Did you know that he wants to get rid of the tax on Socialy Security? Why the heck do we tax THAT anyway?
He also introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219). To keep it solvent.
And he against paying benefits to those who have not paid in to the system.


Someone also mentioned the Healthcare issues:
He might know a thing or two about this subject. Being a Doctor and all..

He refused Medicaid payments..Not the patients, just the government money.
His intention is to again, remove the bureaucracy, and work on decreasing costs.
Making all expenditures tax deductible. Creating a more level playing field for large and small health care providers (and competition).
Under the current Health care system, doctors are not much more than indentured servants. Many are unhappy, as are the patients.
There are NO intentions of throwing anyone out of ANY Health care system..But to guide the system into a competitive marketplace scenario.

And don't forget..If anyone slips through the cracks..The STATES have power too!.

reply to post by semperfortis


He's a Constitutionalist. Whatever he thinks can be done with private charities and/or companies, in his opinion, is much more effective.

I do not agree with all of his policies, but I would consider myself a libertarian.

Well in terms of Ron being a Libertarian I dealt with the issue long before Ron Paul mania broke out on AP mind you that was back when the the Conservative forum was the best forum on the board.
The question I asked at the time is why is Ron still a member of the Republican party ?
The answer eluded me until now if Ron ran as an independent he wouldn't get the media coverage that he does now. Given the differences he has with his own party I don't know how anyone can say that Ron is a Republican with a straight face.

But it is important to keep the matter in perspective it matters very little what letter Ron has next to his name his candidacy is what is important. As I have also said elsewhere Ron is forty years to late he would have gotten along with Goldwater just fine.

I ask myself the same question..
Why are those other Big Government guys STILL members of the republican party? I used to support those guys, but I turned in my Neo-con badge a few months ago. I think I am a Paleo-con at this point.

Ron Paul mania? here?
I haven't seen anything resembling any kind of mania FOR any candidate here.
Although, there are some Ron Paul threads. I guess that's mania..In a relative way.

Ron Paul mania or fantasy has another member has put it exists here on AP and probably else were on the net . We get bombarded by a stream of articles that make claims about Ron popularity based upon unscientific polls and Ron winning so called debates.

I'm waiting for a thread to appear with the topic that Ron breathes in oxygen. Really Ron supporters seem to be caught up in a idealogical fantasy much like when Neo Cons thought that Iraq was going to magically turn into a western style democracy. Perhaps a better statement is that the idea that Ron could be elected and implement his policy's is a fantasy.
The difference is that Ron Paul fans wont get the chance to see there fantasy come true.

Should the circumstances change enough that someone like Ron could be elected and implement his/her policy's I will be more then happy to change my mind about this matter. As for turning in your Neo Con badge this old thread might be of interest.

You see it all boils down to this Ron policy's involve the US government giving up much of its power.
Has anybody heard of a case when a government gave up much of its powers volunteeraly(SP?) ?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by xpert11]

What an excellent thread!
Props indeed to semperfortis for starting this freight train!

I find it very interesting to look at the different perspectives shared here.

As a nation, it is quite obvious that we have strayed away from what our forefathers originally intended (i.e. Constitutional law, advocates of states rights, and minimal federal intervention).

The Constitution, the foundation of this wonderful life in the United States, was to be the backbone and the basis of a (if you allow me to use the Fox News terminology) fair and balanced land where people could live in comfort knowing that the ruling forces were (technically as well as literally) themselves. It was a nation BY the people, FOR the people - serving as an example to the other nations that people can indeed rule themselves and get by just fine without an 'elite' class (as most other countries were dominated by monarchies and oligarchies at the time).

Much can be argued about Ron Paul, and even more can be argued about the proper direction the United States should be headed in and what kind of reforms should be made (as most will agree that reforms are in order). However, there are certain points which cannot be argued (at least logically, as anything can technically be argued - it would just be irrational and insane)...

As I see it, the points of view displayed here boil down to this:

The United States best interests lie in:
A) Returning to Constitutional law
B) Creating a new foundation for our government (a brave new world, if you will...)

Ron Paul represents Viewpoint A.
Most (if not all) other candidates represent Viewpoint B.

As his example so adequately and eloquently displays, Ron Paul symbolizes a return to Constitutional law and the vision of our forefathers. He has, through example as well as wordage, shown that he not only supports the constitution but enforces it (i.e. through his voting actions). Our nation has, albeit slowly but surely, gone in the direction of abandoning states rights in lieu of a more federalized approach. Viewpoint A's claim is that returning to our roots will create a more productive, wealthy, peaceful, and well-liked nation in the world.

As per the other candidates examples, they symbolize a forging ahead into a brave new world. While I have not had the opportunity to ask them personally yet, I would wager most of them would say that our forefather's could not have expected the great advances that have been made in technology and the world at large, and that they are only continuing on the changes our forefathers would have made if they were around today. They would also leave the Federal Income Tax (an unapportioned tax, illegal under the Constitution) untouched. While I believe some of the candidates might say they back the constitution, by them supporting the Federal Income Tax it is a clear example that they are just paying wordage, crossing the dubious line of possibly being branded as liars. The smart candidates on this side would claim the constitution is an outdated piece of parchment that has no place in our great nation, and a new one must be drafted in its place in order to allow us the freedoms and opportunities only a more federalized nation could provide. Viewpoint B's claim is that forging forward into a brave new world is where the true wealth and prosperity of our nation's future lies.

For me, this is a very simple and accurate way to view the arguments made here. The only real questions being posed to us as a voting community are:
A) Is the United States better off returning to Constitutional law?
B) Is the United States better off creating a new foundation for our government?

I am curious to hear any other posters'/peoples'/voters' views on this outlook.

Originally posted by xpert11
Huh ?
Nuclearhead I don't follow your point about the president has more power than a congressman. Going by the US constitution the president powers are limited or spouse to be kept in check by Congress .
Do you think that Ron could implement many of his policy's via executive orders without violating the US constitution ?

Cheers xpert11.

Absolutely not. All I am saying is as president he has a much better shot at implementing his policies than as a Congressman. For starters, he'd make use of the veto to prevent Congress from passing some ridiculous law that doesn't follow the constitution. It would come to the point where Congress would have to read the Constitution and make sure their bill follow it, otherwise run the risk of having the bill vetoed.

For instance, on the issue of the IRS Ron Paul recognizes that it won't be easy and it will take time to get rid of it. But as president he'll be in a better position to promote his policy of abolishing it.

Repost, sry.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by NuclearHead]