Will this hurt Ron Paul's campaign

To answer the question - will this hurt Ron Paul's campaign .. I say no. He isn't a front runner. He's not being taken seriously as a candidate. Therefore, the political machines of Obama and Romney won't bother trying to nail him with it. They are probably too busy trying to come up with dirt on each other (and Christi just in case he decides to run) to bother with him.

In and of itself, this shouldn't hurt Paul at all.

Of course, that is based on the assumption we're not dealing with idiots who buy into MSM propaganda or lobbyists who will oppose him to protect their financial interests. It's the beneath-the-surface shenanigans I worry about.

The media has been trying hard to present Ron Paul as lunatic who has a dream of every American becoming a heroine addict. When, of course, that is not remotely what this is about.

Then we have the lobbyists and corporations to worry about who don't want Paul interfering with their gold mine the war on drugs provides for them.

So in a sane world, this should be a non issue if we have a nation dealing with educated people who can research the facts for themselves to understand what Paul is doing. Unfortunately, we don't.

So if it hurts him, it's going to be based on buddy politics, arguments by outrage, and media propaganda.

Originally posted by kro32




And this is his major flaw. He's a strict constitionalist and the Constitution was written with the ability to be adapted through the amendment process. Ron Paul believes that if it's not in the Constitution it isn't law. The huge mess he's going to create by letting States make their own laws on some important issues without a national standard is just plain wrong.
.....
If you don't see the problems with this way of thinking you are going to be in for a big surprise if he get's elected.

Then if change needs to happen change the Constitution. Put the proposed changes through the process created by those who created this country. If it holds water, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.
The Federal Government has gotten grabby over the past several decades. I do believe that many things (laws, programs, etc.) that I agree with are actually in violation of our Constitution. If things actually need to be changed then it shouldn't be a problem to get the amendment. But, the Federal Government shouldn't just continue to overreach via the Interstate Commerce Clause. It violates both the written law of the Constitution and the spirit of individual freedom behind it.

reply to post by jaycen420


Write a letter to your local representative stating that you support Ron Pauls decision to persue this measure. Common sense should say this should not harm his platform at all.

Originally posted by kro32
If you can't see the repercussions of turning over volatile issues to the states where your going to have different laws all over the country than I don't know what to tell you.

You can start by apologizing for being mistaken and admitting that there are many laws that vary from state to state as it is, above and beyond federal law. So why not laws retracting federal law?

You have to have a better reason than that if you are so dead set against it. Do you even really have a stance on this cause it sounds like you just made that up on the spot without thinking about it.

Think about it....

Ok! Ron Paul made the statement that he thought all drugs should be legalized. However, he was not allowed to finish his statement. (Cnn had a definite bias against all the candidates, but especially agains Dr. Paul and Mr Cain.) I believe we would keep the transportation of drugs across state lines, from a state that allows drug use, to one that has made it illegal. This would be in line with the interstate commerce clause.
Do I want to see herion, meth, coc aine legalized? Not really. I'm work in health care, and I'm the one who is going to have to take care of the OD's. But if these substances are made in state regulated labs, and sold only to adults(with extreme penalties for contributing to the delinqueny of a minor, i.e. death penalty for 1st offense) I could go along with this. It would be nothing more than a social experiment, just like welfare and federally subsidized housing.

reply to post by kro32


No it wont.

It will put things back to the way things were and should be.

Is this the correct idea? Who knows but it is certainly obvious that the path we are on now is a failure. At least, lets take a few steps back, regroup, reassess and take another path. But, leaving decisions as to what citizens can and can not do should be left up to the individual states. This promotes diversity, if I do not like what a state is doing, I can exercise my rights and move to another state that suits me better. These blanket fed rules just makes everything the same without any diversity, makes it all boring without any individuality, which is devastating in that of itself.

If we continue to live under the federal blanket laws as it is becoming, then what is the point of calling us The United States of America. Just change it to The State of America, what is the point of having all these states if they are all the exact same.

That really the type of guy you want in the white house?

compared to any of the other candidates? YES. I would love to see him get a chance.

What if say Texas wanted to bring back slavery?

Then move out of Texas.

Some history of the criminalization of the M-word from a well-known professor at MIT:



I've also heard it had something to do with hemp vs. the plastic industry.

p.s.: skewed, I agree w/ you again. I've actually wondered how possible it feasible it would be to be able to vote on certain laws on a county-by-county (or munincipality....whatever the correct word is) basis. I'm sure people would balk initially saying it would be too confusing, but I think it could work....in a perfect world anyways.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I would think it should help his campaign. He promotes individual liberty and people who are going to vote for him should be aware that if he is successful as president, we will likely be seeing more personal freedom for the people. And that means they will be allowed to marry who they choose, consume what they choose, make their own reproduction choices.

States rights is not a panacea for all important issues. Some decisions belong in the states, like gay marriage. Others, like dangerous illegal drugs, do not.

So RP's philosophy is nothing spectacular. It's mere common sense, even though he tries to apply it to too many issues, which is a method of avoiding having to take a stance on some issues, imo. But too many Americans have yielded their individual sovereignty over to the gov that they are on the verge of becoming invisible.

reply to post by kro32


You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but you will be misinterpreted and misunderstood by many here.

RP applies the "States Rights" solution to too many issues. Some issues require a national position, such as do we want to make PCP legal for teenagers, or anyone, to freely ingest. That would destroy the soul of our nation. But other things, like gay marriage, I say yeah, let that decision be made at the state level.

RP uses "States Rights" to appear like he is for freedom, when he is actually ducking out of some very tough decisions by calling for it carte blanche.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by kro32

 

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but you will be misinterpreted and misunderstood by many here.

RP applies the "States Rights" solution to too many issues. Some issues require a national position, such as do we want to make PCP legal for teenagers, or anyone, to freely ingest. That would destroy the soul of our nation. But other things, like gay marriage, I say yeah, let that decision be made at the state level.

RP uses "States Rights" to appear like he is for freedom, when he is actually ducking out of some very tough decisions by calling for it carte blanche.

The founders, people that I daresay we can admit seemed to be rather with it folk, already determined exactly which issues should or should not fall under the Federal Government. In order to even have a United Republic rather than a Confederation they agreed to the Bill of Rights which includes in it the very clear language that those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government nor specifically denied to the states are RESERVED TO THE STATES and the PEOPLE.

Washington has no right, none, to just sweep that under the rug. Constitutionally it IS up to each state if a drug should or should not be legal. If the states in this modern age feel that some things require uniformity then the Constiution has a way to do that too. Amend it. Short of that the Feds have over reached in too many areas to count.

reply to post by getreadyalready

No, the only way this bill hurts his campaign, is if it is blown out of proportion, misread, misreported, and people believe all the 10 second sound bites and 10 word tickers instead of actually knowing what the bill is about and what Ron Paul is about.

The problem is, that is the way it is most likely to play out. Common sense goes out of the window replaced by knee jerking MSM who's only interest is keeping the masses in fear.

I do not think it will hurt Ron's chances of getting in.

He has done that himself, with his 'whatever is hip with the kids' policies.

He is not a born leader.

If it came to a world war, he would be at the other end of the spectrum from Churchill.

We would all be increasing the volume of our tv/radios, and he still wouldn't register.

Regards, Skellon.

reply to post by Skellon


Sadly, as much as a I agree with Ron Pauls policies, I have to agree on his weak leadership skills. Of course, that is why I am supporting him this time around, because anyone can look like a leader following Obama! Ron Paul's small flaws will be masked how little we have come to expect.

As far as him pushing whatever is "hip," I think you are 180 degrees out of whack. Every other politician on the stage is reacting to the polls, pushing an agenda that polls well, flip-flopping their platform to the whim of the public, while Ron Paul has been preaching the same things for more than a generation! The only thing he has changed, is to update his views to address current events. He has never catered to the "hip" crowd, or tried to be popular. In that regard, he is leading by example, and thus presidential material!