Ron Paul Endorses U.S. Senate Candidate Rep. Kurt Bills of Minnesota

[risk_reward]

It probably is, when you get into the details... but the question is is the other guy better, and why does Ron think this guy is better, to me. I suspect there is something or things specific Ron has in mind.

--
edit, come to think of it, this is Bachmann territory. Didn't they pretty much ALL vote for that Constitutional amendment? Wouldn't that apply to the guy he is running against?

and TC, defining a sacrament EITHER way is objectionable, I would think. Churches and individuals should work it out for themselves. But it sounds like this might have been for a purpose, this endorsement, as when Ron endorsed Stevens when Stevens pushed Ron's audit bill. There was no one better running against him, but he wasn't exactly 'one of us'. It was just that we all wanted the Fed audited.

Severson is not currently in office, but would likely have voted for the marriage ammendment, too. The point is Severson is honest about his positions: he even puts them on his webpage:

http://www.danseverson.com/issues

Kurt Bills however is promising a lot but only in private. He avoids all issues in his stump speechs and only talks about being an economics teacher. He has no issues on his website:
kurtbills.com

The fact of the matter is that he seems untrustworthy to me. He knew beforehand that the Paul supporters were the determining factor in the governor endorsement and we are stronger this time. He is using us.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron wants government out of marriage all together. He was not in Congress when DOMA was passed, and has described it as letting states decide for themselves which is how the Constitution always had it. I have never heard him say anything that makes me believe he even KNOWS there is a federal definition in there. And he is opposed to the Constitutional amendment because he thinks govt should be out of religious matters but in any event, the states should decide if anyone does.

Ron doesn't know everything about every bill he didn't vote on. He had to have DADT enforcement explained to him because he thought it was a nonfraternization policy, which he figured should apply to all.

 

[risk_reward]

Risk_Reward criticized this guy for voting against abortion and gay marriage, which Ron has also voted against. Ron supports a ban on abortion, and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't simply prevent one state from forcing gay marriage on another state. It also DEFINES marriage as being between a man and a woman at the federal level and strips Social Security benefits from gay couples.

I did not criticize him for that. I just listed them as controversial votes in the liberty community.

 

[lib3rtarian]

If we are going to measure up every wannabe politician against the man Paul himself, then we are in for a world of hurt. No one will even come close. Me thinks this is more of someone like Benton firing off the email under Paul's name though.

Nonetheless, I can't simply dump a candidate Paul endorsed. Gonna give him a looksee.

 

[Brett85]

I did not criticize him for that. I just listed them as controversial votes in the liberty community.

Perhaps his stance on gay marriage is, but from the debates and discussions that I've had with people here, it seems like the majority of people here on these forums would call themselves "pro life."

 

[sailingaway]

Severson is not currently in office, but would likely have voted for the marriage ammendment, too. The point is Severson is honest about his positions: he even puts them on his webpage:

http://www.danseverson.com/issues

Kurt Bills however is promising a lot but only in private. He avoids all issues in his stump speechs and only talks about being an economics teacher. He has no issues on his website:
kurtbills.com

The fact of the matter is that he seems untrustworthy to me. He knew beforehand that the Paul supporters were the determining factor in the governor endorsement and we are stronger this time. He is using us.

You have to make your own decisions. Ron's voting record is pure, but he may trust those who don't have a record and take them at their word, given that he is a trustworthy man, himself.

I agree with the poster above that I'd at least LOOK at them and tend towards supporting them, given Ron's endorsement. But in the end, I'd have to look them over.

 

[sailingaway]

Perhaps his stance on gay marriage is, but from the debates and discussions that I've had with people here, it seems like the majority of people here on these forums would call themselves "pro life."

I think you are right on that. It is a matter of when you think life begins. If you think a fetus is a baby you don't have a choice to kill it any more than you have a choice to kill your baby. Period. It is when you think life begins. Liberty isnt' the issue.

 

[Brett85]

Ron wants government out of marriage all together. He was not in Congress when DOMA was passed, and has described it as letting states decide for themselves which is how the Constitution always had it. I have never heard him say anything that makes me believe he even KNOWS there is a federal definition in there. And he is opposed to the Constitutional amendment because he thinks govt should be out of religious matters but in any event, the states should decide if anyone does.

Ron doesn't know everything about every bill he didn't vote on. He had to have DADT enforcement explained to him because he thought it was a nonfraternization policy, which he figured should apply to all.

I'm not sure why Ron would actually comment on a bill that he didn't actually know that much about. There were two votes this term that had to do with preserving the defense of marriage act, and Ron voted "yes" both times. He also voted in favor of a bill that prohibited chaplains from marrying gay couples on military bases. Even if he thinks that the government should ultimately get out of marriage all together, his short term goal is to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in order to prevent the government from expanding marriage beyond what it is now.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron is religious and considers marriage a sacrament. I would have to look at those votes, though. Did it 'prohibit' chaplains or prohibit FORCING chaplains against their religion, for example? because he absolutely would be against that. He thinks it shocking for government to mess with someone's religion.

So do I, frankly. But I also think it should stay out of marraige definitions, in part for the same reason. What about a church which DOES consider same sex marriage a sacrament? By what right does government impose on that?

 

[Brett85]

Ron is religious and considers marriage a sacrament. I would have to look at those votes, though. Did it 'prohibit' chaplains or prohibit FORCING chaplains against their religion, for example? because he absolutely would be against that. He thinks it shocking for government to mess with someone's religion.

So do I, frankly. But I also think it should stay out of marraige definitions, in part for the same reason. What about a church which DOES consider same sex marriage a sacrament? By what right does government impose on that?

The government doesn't make it illegal for a church to marry a gay couple. Gay marriage is already decriminalized. That's good enough for me. The votes that I was talking about are number #17 and #18. I think these two bills might not be the same as the other bill I was talking about. I'm not sure.

http://conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2011/housedesc.pdf

 

[Ryan_G]

Can anyone confirm this? Is he really not that good?

I'm not sure what the problems are with the budget votes. MN ended up with a 1.2 billion dollar surplus, so it doesn't seem like a problem to me.
The "regulating youth sports" was requiring coaches to take a training course about concussions, and to pull an athlete if they have the symptoms of a concussion. This is state government, where such legislation is acceptable to me, and Bills is/was a wrestling coach so he is probably somewhat informed about the issue. His major theme seems to be bringing Austrian economics to Washington. He also introduced a bill to make gold and silver legal tender in MN. There wasn't much info on his foreign policy, but obviously he has assured Paul that he is non-interventionist. The other issues on risk_reward's list I'm not really familiar with.

He is also an excellent speaker, he had our entire BPOU (far more than just Paul people) motivated, focusing pretty much entirely on economics, and got huge applause.

Seems pretty good to me.

 

[sailingaway]

The government doesn't make it illegal for a church to marry a gay couple. Gay marriage is already decriminalized. That's good enough for me. The votes that I was talking about are number #17 and #18. I think these two bills might not be the same as the other bill I was talking about. I'm not sure.

http://conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2011/housedesc.pdf

I already discussed doma, but I'd have to see the other one. My recollection is there was a lot of talk about it being a conscience thing, where chaplains REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS would be forced to perform the ceremonies. It was while they were also discussing Obama's requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions if they got any govt funds for ANYTHING. I'd have to read the bill, and if this were a hot button issue of mine I would, but I'm fine with taking Ron at what he says, that he wants government out of it.
'm going to stop this discussion because we are derailing the endorsement thread.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Kurt Bills is the best of the three. I say that not only because he supported Ron Paul and Paul has endorsed him, but because I know, on a personal level, that this is an honorable man.

I had Bills a number of years ago as a teacher, earlier in his career before he held any elected office. I didn't quite realize it at the time, but I believe the way he taught economics planted the seeds of my receptiveness to Ron Paul's message on the economy years later. I can't remember exactly, but I swear he even mentioned Von Mises and Hayek in a basic economics course. He taught fairly, but pointed out the flaws of the Keynesian approach. That's far better than almost any other public school teacher you'll find in economics.

I don't know if Bills has changed much since he was elected to Rosemount city council and later to the MN House, but I doubt it. He stood out as a fair teacher who set the bar high for his students. I remember that some students were upset about him having a high percentage threshold in his classes for getting As, Bs, etc. in an effort to combat grade inflation, but I respected him for it.

I understand that some people are leery of the gay marriage issues, but for me, there are far more important matters. Having another guy in the Senate who really gets in on economics is worth its weight in gold. We have no one else at this level, save Rand Paul. I doubt he would support a Federal ban anyway. Going through the states is perfectly constitutional, but unsavory for some people.

As for the lack of issues on his website, I think that's due to the newness of his campaign, not an effort to hide or mislead anyone. It was only launched about three weeks and still seems fairly basic. I hope to see more content added in the very near future.

Let me reiterate this: if you aren't supporting Bills, then please support Severson as a second choice. The third man running for the Senate nomination, Pete Hegseth, looks like a very dangerous neo-con who hides behind his military experience. His Veterans for Freedom group is linked to the CFR and has promoted "staying the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as branching out into new wars for years. We don't want this guy.

 

[sailingaway]

Kurt Bills is the best of the three. I say that not only because he supported Ron Paul and Paul has endorsed him, but because I know, on a personal level, that this is an honorable man.

I had Bills a number of years ago as a teacher, earlier in his career before he held any elected office. I didn't quite realize it at the time, but I believe the way he taught economics planted the seeds of my receptiveness to Ron Paul's message on the economy years later. I can't remember exactly, but I swear he even mentioned Von Mises and Hayek in a basic economics course. He taught fairly, but pointed out the flaws of the Keynesian approach. That's far better than almost any other public school teacher you'll find in economics.

I don't know if Bills has changed much since he was elected to Rosemount city council and later to the MN House, but I doubt it. He stood out as a fair teacher who set the bar high for his students. I remember that some students were upset about him having a high percentage threshold in his classes for getting As, Bs, etc. in an effort to combat grade inflation, but I respected him for it.

I understand that some people are leery of the gay marriage issues, but for me, there are far more important matters. Having another guy in the Senate who really gets in on economics is worth its weight in gold. We have no one else at this level, save Rand Paul. I doubt he would support a Federal ban anyway. Going through the states is perfectly constitutional, but unsavory for some people.

As for the lack of issues on his website, I think that's due to the newness of his campaign, not an effort to hide or mislead anyone. It was only launched about three weeks and still seems fairly basic. I hope to see more content added in the very near future.

Let me reiterate this: if you aren't supporting Bills, then please support Severson as a second choice. The third man running for the Senate nomination, Pete Hegseth, looks like a very dangerous neo-con who hides behind his military experience. His Veterans for Freedom group is linked to the CFR and has promoted "staying the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as branching out into new wars for years. We don't want this guy.

thank you for posting that. That pretty much explains to me why Ron chose him.

 

[Brett85]

I'm not sure what the problems are with the budget votes. MN ended up with a 1.2 billion dollar surplus, so it doesn't seem like a problem to me.

Some people just think that he should vote "no" on every budget, like Ron always does. Unfortunately, there's something called political reality that many here never take into account.

 

[Ryan_G]

Pete Hegseth sent this in an email this morning (the worst one running):

On Thursday, I announced our campaign’s goal to raise an additional $10,000 before midnight tonight--the crucial end-of-quarter fundraising deadline. Since then, we’ve raised over $19,000 in online contributions alone! You have stepped up and I'm honored (and humbled).

Hopefully Kurt Bills fundraising can make that look bad =)

edit - Kurt just put this on his facebook:

With just over 12 hours left to the deadline - I am humbled by the nearly 300 of you who contributed online. We are looking for 200 more before midnight! Please visit www.kurtbills.com - your donation of $20.12, $50, or $100 ensures Washington D.C. will get its lesson in Econ 101!

Not sure what the average donation is but it sounds like he's behind.

 

[sailingaway]

Some people just think that he should vote "no" on every budget, like Ron always does. Unfortunately, there's something called political reality that many here never take into account.

If they have income to cover it, as they did, and Constitutional power to do it, as STATES generally do, and it was the desire of the people to have the spending, Ron would say the people should be represented. You don't need to take a swipe at Ron. Mind you, if the budget was full of corporatist boondoggles, that would be a different situation.

 

[Agorism]

where that pic of him in the helicopter.

 

[Matt Collins]

Kurt is having an end of the quarter push, please donate to him!

 

[NoOneButPaul]

The lack of Kurt Bills love is appalling...

THIS IS A SENATE SEAT AGAINST A HUGE DOUCHEBAG OF A DEMOCRAT!