"Why I won't vote for Ron Paul" and My Reposte

[speciallyblend]

I wouldn't expect any Obama supporter to understand why jurisdictional authority is important to self government. Most of them have grown up with the idea that Washington should make all the decisions. They'll never comprehend the idea that giving all authority to the federal government effectively disenfranchises the individual and leaves matters up to those with the most money and influence. If these matters were left to the states, as was originally intended, there would be some conservative states and there would be some liberal states but most importantly localized (state) government is more responsive to the desires of the populations. IOW, if you want to have a say in how you're governed you won't fall for the idea that everyone should be under the same rules regardless of the will of the people. Top down government is always tyrannical.

I'd also like to ask the Obama man just what has changed since Mr. Change was elected. Same policies as George W. Bush.

obama/bush 2012 ,how any obama supporter could say obama is not bush is beyond me.

 

[angelatc]

Jeezus. We're on the brink of financial and military armageddon and this nut is concerned about gay marriage and the right to scramble your baby's brains? This world is seriously fucked up and deserves whatever it gets.

The problem with that is that WE don't deserve the mess they're creating.

 

[jcarcinogen]

Herp derp Ron Paul! herp derp freedom! herp derp the constitution! herp derp.

Seriously though, people who supported Obama had good reasons, like ending the wars, and the corruption of Bush - or so they believed. To depict them as drooling zombies is silly.

I'm glad they aren't zombies and are holding Obama responsible!

 

[Xhin]

He also wants to give legislative power back to the States rather than the fedgov, because that more effectively gives it back to the People. All of the contradiction in his public policies can be summed up as "I believe X, but I support states' rights more, which allow for Y if the People choose it."

A lot of things are also taken out of context -- for example the civil rights issue was about telling people what they could and could not do on their own private property and the "voting against MLK day" misconception is just hilarious (he voted against it being that specific day, but voted yes for a different day).

 

[affa]

I'm sad to say it, but he might actually be right about this part. We do tend to give ourselves way too much credit as far as the knowledge of the average Ron Paul supporter goes. Granted, a large portion of Ron Paul supporters are indeed way more informed than the average voter, but I think it's far from the majority :-/

A) Show me average Obama supporters that can: "coherently articulate his policies, why they are the right thing, or how they are constitutionally justified"

B) The people that I talked to at the Rally last night (in line, no Ron Paul gear on) were able to articulate his policies quite well. But my 'small sample' is no more valid than his.

 

[CasualApathy]

I'm glad they aren't zombies and are holding Obama responsible!

Well, Obama's approval rating did tank pretty quickly after he took power, and still consideing the mass hysteria on election day it is far from impressive, so I think a lot of them are in fact. Not the media though, but don't confuse the two.

Edit for graph:

 

[mickey mouse joy division]

[FOOTNOTE][/FOOTNOTE]

Jeezus. We're on the brink of financial and military armageddon and this nut is concerned about gay marriage and the right to scramble your baby's brains? This world is seriously fucked up and deserves whatever it gets.

This attitude right here is why I became a vocal, passionate Ron Paul supporter. I cannot believe the issues many people my age (and older) obsess over to the exclusion of so many other crucial things plaguing our nation in 2012. It disgusts me.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Ron Paul supporters is by far, much more better in explaning what their candidate is doing and how it is right, than Obama supporters are.

Ask Obama supporters what Obama has specifically done to help the country and ask them about the NDAA bullcrap.

 

[splanky]

The problem with that is that WE don't deserve the mess they're creating.

Hey, those of us in the remnant, as RP calls it, were overwhelmed by the drooling idiots - for decades. So it's up to you. You'll either lose, in which case we all will lose, or you'll go down as the REAL Greatest Generation (not related to the book of political fiction).

 

[CasualApathy]

Ron Paul supporters is by far, much more better in explaning what their candidate is doing and how it is right, than Obama supporters are.

Ask Obama supporters what Obama has specifically done to help the country and ask them about the NDAA bullcrap.

That's because all the smarter ones don't support him anymore, still a lot of people had very good reasons for voting Obama over McCain.

Edit for better graph:

 

[Jack Bauer]

That's because all the smarter ones don't support him anymore, still a lot of people had very good reasons for voting Obama over McCain.

lol. Absolute nonsense.

They will all vote for him this fall.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

^^Also can someone please +rep this post for me, the boards are telling me I'm only allowed to do it once

I got you covered

 

[CasualApathy]

lol. Absolute nonsense.

They will all vote for him this fall.

Yes that is indeed a statement that you just made there.

Edit: to point out a lot of them are switching to Paul, and NONE to any other republican.

 

[Gary W Trott]

Why does it matter what Ron Paul's supporters believe if the discussion is about Ron Paul himself?

 

[Firehouse26]

This was part of a discussion I was having with one of my Obama supporting, liberal acquaintances and why he said he wont vote for Ron Paul. I am now planning on researching each one of these individual "complaints" and responding to them in detail (I don't have anything better to do). I figured it would be a good idea to post it here, not only to potentially aid others but in hopes of some additional jewels of information from this very informed community. As soon as I get my response typed up, I will make sure to post it here.



"Apologies for what is about to be a wall of text filled, no doubt, with typos. I am on my tablet and cant format or spell check effectively. if it were a movement centered around policy, I might buy that, but instead its a movement around a person, which is dangerous because when that person is gone, it falls apart or becomes chaos (see India/Pakistan after the death of Ghandi) But no, my experience has been very different. The average ron Paul supporter that i meet (and granted, these have been, like, people on the street with signs or someone I see with a bumper sticker on their car) cannot coherently articulate his policies, why they are the right thing, or how they are constitutionally justified.

More often I find that they are simply libertarians who don't like government as a rule and are meer breaths away from simply being anarchists. But to be fair, if I judged a public figure solely by the behavior or beliefs of their supporters, I could certainly not support the President either, so let me be clear. I don't support ron Paul because I generally don't like someone who approaches public policy from a solely ideological perspective and that is what I believe is most true about Dr. Paul. The merits, likely success, or necessity of a proposal is meaningless to him. He supports it or not based only on his narrow filters of what can and can't be done. But what's worse, is that when you leave the rhelm of fiscal policy and move into social policy, all of that ideolical consistency that concerns me and is valued by others, suddenly flied to the wind.

His social policy is not just inconsistent, its frightening. He plays both sides of the fence on the gay rights debate, including attempting to prohibit federals courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage act, while simultaneously claiming that its not a federal issue. He said that don't ask don't tell was a "decent policy" in 2007, then voted for its repeal in 2011. He believes that Texas should have been allowed to keep a law making it illegal to be gay (or rather to act on that fact with another person) and to punish 'offenders' however they saw fit. He is supposedly against civil rights violations, but has also stated repeatedly that he doesn't believe the constitution provides a right to privacy, meaning that he's OK with a state government reading your emails, just not the federal government.

He claims that the federal government should not have a role in banning or condoning abortion, yet he has voted multiple times in congress to limit abortion rights. He is supposedly against the death penalty as part of his "pro life stance" but supports a states right to execute people. He has actively campaigned to abolish public schools, financial aid for college, and in fact the entire department of education. He's managed to score a perfect 0 for environmentalism (according to the LCV). He opposes the voting rights act and the civil rights act. He wants to take away the peoples right to vote for their us senators by repealing the 17th amendment and uphold the electoral college which has repeatedly resulted in the winner of a presidential election being the candidate with fewer votes.

And finally, his answer to sexual harassment in the workplace is to simply quit your job and get a different one, something we can see is very easy to do these days. When someone can give me a coherant justification, constitutional or otherwise, for that trainwreck of policy positions, maybe I won't be so hard on the guy. But it hasn't been done yet."

Sparring with other supporters is fun indeed, but what are you hoping to accomplish? This friend of yours apparetnly thinks we have a true democracy vs. a Constitutional Republic based off his/her comments regarding the electoral college/popular vote. So you're trying to convert someone that is deeply entrenched in the liberal talking points. I'd start with the whole Constitutional Republic, but I think you're going to lose them! You'd be better off doing targeted door knocking at Hard Republican addresses for RP. But don't get me wrong, it's not nearly as fun as an intellectual debate.

 

[Firehouse26]

Another point, they are very mistaken about the movement being about a single person! This couldn't be further from the truth. Point out that RP's face is never on the cover of any of his books, let alone plastered on whale of a tour bus like the other ego-maniacs. Paul always says, it's the message not the man. For your friend to think it's about him means he's only looking as deep as the fact that there's some die hard followers who shout his name alot.

 

[CasualApathy]

Another point, they are very mistaken about the movement being about a single person! This couldn't be further from the truth. Point out that RP's face is never on the cover of any of his books, let alone plastered on whale of a tour bus like the other ego-maniacs. Paul always says, it's the message not the man. For your friend to think it's about him means he's only looking as deep as the fact that there's some die hard followers who shout his name alot.

I remember he said in 07 that all the focus on him made him feel uncomfortable, I think that's why he makes sure to point out that it's really not about him so often as he does.

 

[truthspeaker]

Wasn't there an in-depth analysis on a blog about why RP vs. Obama match-up would be a tough pill for Obama supporters to follow? It articulates very clearly what arguments to use.

It had been posted here.

 

[abruzz0]

lol @ an Obama supporter say another candidate's supporters can't explain their policies

And all he talks about are fringe, wedge issues that make no difference...guy sounds like a fast asleep lost cause sheep

 

[nicname]

I wouldn't expect any Obama supporter to understand why jurisdictional authority is important to self government. Most of them have grown up with the idea that Washington should make all the decisions. They'll never comprehend the idea that giving all authority to the federal government effectively disenfranchises the individual and leaves matters up to those with the most money and influence. If these matters were left to the states, as was originally intended, there would be some conservative states and there would be some liberal states but most importantly localized (state) government is more responsive to the desires of the populations. IOW, if you want to have a say in how you're governed you won't fall for the idea that everyone should be under the same rules regardless of the will of the people. Top down government is always tyrannical.

I'd also like to ask the Obama man just what has changed since Mr. Change was elected. Same policies as George W. Bush.

Excactly! As I've become more invloved (studying not running for office or anything) government and politics the advantages of a non-centralized system have really shown through to me. It kind of goes back to the whole thing of people setting examples and the best examples usually win out. This is not possible in a system where the federal government has so much power.

We all know, and RP has said numerous times that the constitution reigns in the FED GOV much tighter than it does state and local governments and it is designed that way for a reason.

I have no problem with local and some state level government welfare programs, etc. I also have no problem with a hands off approach to a number of problems either. The problem is when that federal government doesn't allow states and local governments to handle situations in the way they see fit for their people.

If our states and local governments were allowed to act in accord with their own wants and needs many of the problems we face today would work themselves out. Some states would be liberal strongholds and some would be more conservative. How the laws of the state would effect business, civil liberties, etc. would be seen by other states who would then use that knowledge to craft their own laws in a more appropriate manner.

Finally, if your state didn't jive with your beliefs you would be easily able to freely move to a state that more mirrored your own philosophy.

It isn't that Gov intervention is bad in and of itself, it is that the federal government not allowing local and state governments to act according to their own wills without infringing on the rights of others is what is the problem here.

Easy example: I have no problem for a city ordinance requiring all lawns in a city to be maintained by the owners. I do have a problem with the federal government doing the same thing.