Eh. There are people on here that don't even know the age required to become President nor about the electoral college.
"Why I won't vote for Ron Paul" and My Reposte
- Thread starter Joshua2585
- Start date
Eh. There are people on here that don't even know the age required to become President nor about the electoral college.
I don't know the age required to become president without looking it up. It also isn't important.
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
^^ It's important if you intend to follow the Constitution with regard to its requirements to become president!
wake me up when there is a serious chance that someone 34 or younger is going to be elected pres.
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
With the disregard that so many have for the Constitution, coupled with the tendency for Americans to embrace celebrity without talent/skills, you never know.
LOL ... That reminds me of Howard Stern taking it to the streets, and a few others doing the same.
They asked questions and got support for the most outlandish things, and the best part was the "Oh I support that" comments that were obvious McCain talking points, yet the interviewee wished to think they were Obama talking points.
It's actually scary to think how uninformed some voters actually are ... Vote for whoever the TV says to vote for.
To the OP,
Best of luck with this, you might scramble a few brain cells accomplishing the task, though ... Some are very much ideologically driven.
The problem is,
Many don't know WHO'S idology or principles they desire.
I gotta agree ... I've hungout on a forum that was pro-Obama, and I can honestly say I have never met so many closed minded people.If the individual in question is into intellectual integrity I would request that those claims be sourced because quite frankly most of the ones I've run into before are from write ups that are closer to opinion than analysis. Example what Paul said first and foremost about harassment policy is that he believes there needs to be a clear definition of harassment so that telling an off-color joke isn't met with the same response as an attempt to coerce sexual favors from a co-worker / subordinate. He further elaborated that he didn't feel use of federal authority was the best means for dealing with such issues.
All of which is quite a bit different than "well just get a different job" which is in essence a fragmented quote taken out of context used to give the write up more salacious ratings value.
The point I'm going for here is that while responding to each issue is valid and I commend you for researching and doing a write up as a reaction to each point, if the individual you're conversing with refuses to doubt the point of view put forth by the sources your facts may not get a fair hearing and as such a key part of the response would be getting the specific sources used so that you can fact check not only the claims made but also the authors. Authors have bias, that's simply how things work (no one is 100% neutral) but it changes from opinion to dishonesty if those biases are masked and presented as facts rather than analysis.
I'll be interested to see your write up (oh also one tip for when you're researching, go to the voting record because that's where actual policy is made, govtrack.us has the listing)
Cheers
Dianne
Account Closed
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,995
I thought he was going to differ between himself and Ron Paul; because he is a war monger and hates his home and his family; and would far prefer a government intrusive to tell he and his family what they can and cannot do.. And he wants a government that supports stealing the homes of millions of innocent Americans from an economic crisis the government created.
I thought the man wanted freedom to travel, freedom of religion, freedom to share his crop with his neighbor; freedom to share milk with your next door neighbor when delivered from your cow.. freedom to take vitamins; freedom to allow your neighbor to enjoy the fresh eggs your chicken hatched. Freedom to go on vacation, and not have your private parts and the private parts of your children and your spouse filmed and filed for Janet's pervets to see.
My advice is to ask your friend to return to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is not what the United States was to be; although it is swiftly approaching it... where no one; other than the sexy rich will own anything in this country. Your Papers Please !!!!!
I thought the man wanted freedom to travel, freedom of religion, freedom to share his crop with his neighbor; freedom to share milk with your next door neighbor when delivered from your cow.. freedom to take vitamins; freedom to allow your neighbor to enjoy the fresh eggs your chicken hatched. Freedom to go on vacation, and not have your private parts and the private parts of your children and your spouse filmed and filed for Janet's pervets to see.
My advice is to ask your friend to return to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is not what the United States was to be; although it is swiftly approaching it... where no one; other than the sexy rich will own anything in this country. Your Papers Please !!!!!
Matthanuf06
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 186
And literally 99% with the end the fed mentally have no clue how it all works. They are just stupidly anti wall street due to their lack of information and herd mentality
Muwahid
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
Well a lot of OWS protesters are liberal and want the Fed to continue (with regulations). I don't think End the Fed people are Anti-Wall Street, of course the Ron Paul supporters, if he is elected, I can see a sizeable portion crying he didn't end the fed the first day in office which would be a catastrophe, the first and foremost thing is legalizing tangible money, the rest comes when the people see the right way.
I have to agree that many Paul supporters can't articulate positions, but they know them well, and they can parrot them but when it comes to harder questions like "What about the uninsured", "what about roads and bridges", and so on, I can see many supporters having a little trouble, you have to know libertarianism well and austrian economics well to fully defend all of pauls positions, but many people don't have the time to invest in academically studying subjects like this.
I disagree where some people say the supporters of romney and the other don't know their positions because turn on fox news and there's all their positions right there, pro-israel, pro-war, anti-obamacare, and the list goes on, we have to think and read, we don't have a 24/7 network to feed us ron paul talking points.
Here are a few thoughts I jotted down about this person's statements.
Recently, I urged the campaign to put together more detailed responses
written and/or video on these and other issues that Dr. Paul is
sometimes attacked on.
"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."
If one gets their information about Ron Paul from the mainstream media
or from the occasional blogger who hates Ron Paul and misconstrues his
ideas, it is expected to see a list of "he voted against this," "he
supports that," etc. without any context or detailed look at why he voted
a particular way. We will probably see more of what I call "hit-and-run"
type attacks where a long list of one sentence attacks are posted. A more
intellectually honest way of disagreeing with Dr. Paul would be to list
what he did, *accurately* describe his reasoning for doing what he did
and then stating disagreements with Dr. Paul's reasoning.
His "ideological perspective" is very simple in that he will support a
Federal law if:
1. He thinks it is a good idea for the country; and
2. He considers it Constitutional
I have seen rare exceptions, especially in relation to repealing
what he considers unconstitutional laws. He will often be against
the immediate repeal in some cases because he sees a need for
transition (and can in some cases take decades).
One other very important point is that the way most Bills are written
is a combination of many sections, some of which may or may not be
Constitutional and some of which may or may not be good for the Country.
In cases where there are some good and bad things in the Bill, a vote
either for or against the Bill can lead to knee-jerk attacks and being
portrayed as either for or against the entire Bill.
What is particularly sad is to see people actually attacks Dr. Paul's
views without even considering the U.S. Constitution. Every President
and Member of Congress takes an oath of office:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Their oath doesn't involve defending a lobbyist (all of which avoid Dr. Paul)
or the Federal Government, or good ideas, or really great laws, or your
political party, etc. The oath is about defending the U.S. Constitution.
Without defending this framework of rules, then society gradually descends
into chaos and/or tyranny. In this way, we get the Federal Government that
starts to ban all sorts of things that they are given no authority over. We
see the Federal Government authorizing the killing of its own citizens without
judicial review. We see undeclared wars started by the President as well
as secret bombing attacks in various countries. We see money taken from
citizens to fund banksters, given to governments so they can buy our weapons
(and fund the war machine), given to countries that abuse (and even boil alive)
their citizens. We see spying on American citizens, attempts to control the
Internet, even the possibility of military detention of citizens without
allowing representation. We also see countless cases of possible corporate
crime that is ignored. We see the gradual destruction of the middle class
and the corruption of our bought-and-paid-for "representatives." In my opinion,
this is all expected when you ignore the Constitution and support whatever
someone happens to think is a good idea at the time.
Fortunately, I think people are waking up to the need to get back to the
U.S. Constitution even though the document isn't perfect.
===================
"He said that don't ask don't tell was a "decent policy" in 2007, then voted
for its repeal in 2011."
See full context of his answer at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU
Ron Paul supports not asking employees about their sexual preferences.
He also supports a law that removes people exhibiting disruptive
behavior from the military (see video above). However, he saw that
the way the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) law was applied ended up
discriminating against good people (and was not applied to just
disruptive behavior). That is why he voted to repeal DADT.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/ron-paul-reversal-dadt
===============
"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."
The definition of marriage is obviously not a federal issue. There is nothing
in the constitution alluding to marriage. The 10th Amendment States:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
He supported the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The Iowa legislature
voted for that law because they did not want the Federal Government dictating
to the states how they should define marriage. Federal Courts should not have
jurisdiction because these decisions should be up to the States and/or the
people according to the 10th Amendment. He was consistent: He supported a
state law claimed that it was not a federal issue.
Now his own personal preference is not really relevant because he takes seriously
his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In other words, he supports the States'
rights to make laws -- some of which he would agree and some he would disagree with.
For example, he thinks while hallucinogenic drugs can be dangerous, he thinks we
would be better off as a society if we just legalized them and treated addictions
as a disease and only prosecute when others are harmed. But he does support States
rights to make certain drugs illegal. On the other hand, he is against abortion and
would support States' rights to make laws about abortion.
Here is a video answer he gave about marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0NqJFMAlg
Keep in mind that this was only a 1 minute answer and he has much more about
this in his book.
====================
"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."
That is not what Dr. Paul said. He did say that sodomy laws such as the one in Texas
was "ridiculous." Even though he was strongly against such a state law, he was
also against the Federal Government dictating to the states that they cannot establish
their own standards for sexual conduct based on what he considers a significant
misreading of the U.S. Constitution. See his statement at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Some may believe that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in all cases where
a state passes laws on sexual standards. But Dr. Paul's criticism of the decision
should not be misconstrued as somehow supporting that Texas law.
=======================
"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"
No, he's not okay with State governments reading your emails. He has said numerous
times that States will sometimes pass bad laws that need to be changed. But his
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is that the generic idea of "privacy" is
not a right. But certain aspects of privacy are protected, e.g., "...nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
He is clearly concerned about privacy as can be seem from:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-liberties/
The way to fix problems with State governments reading your emails (your example)
might be to:
1. Work to put protections in State government constitutions (or laws) to protect
against this type of activity.
2. Work to create an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if necessary.
3. Use existing Amendments where applicable to defend individual rights. For
example, the Federal Government should be able to prevent the State Government
from reading your emails without due process of law -- judicial warrant (provided
those emails are considered your private property).
But I think he is against just allowing the Federal Government to "protect" us
just because some people think it is a good idea. If it is such a good idea, lets
amend the U.S. Constitution.
========================
"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."
I have no idea what votes are being talked about here. The votes I am aware of
related primarily to either giving abortion decisions to the States (Sanctity of
Life Act and We The People Act) and defining from a Federal Government perspective
when life begins (Sanctity of Life Act). Some people would label support for these
Acts as "limiting abortion rights." He did vote for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Act. Even though he is personally against abortion, he voted against restricting
minors from interstate travel to get abortions.
========================
"He is supposedly against the death penalty as part of his 'pro life stance' but
supports a states right to execute people."
Here is what he says on the death penalty:
"This is one issue in which my views have shifted in recent years, especially since
being elected to Congress. There was a time I simply stated that I supported the
death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the
federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official,
interfere with the individual states that impose it."
"After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government’s
ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the
U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any conditions.
Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error,
but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released
on DNA evidence."
"Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most
people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a
situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the
death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off. For me
it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the
guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost
of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out
not for years but for decades."
You can see that he is against the death penalty, but takes his oath of office
seriously and will not impose his views on the States.
=======================
"He has actively campaigned to abolish public schools, financial aid for college,
and in fact the entire department of education."
Under what authority does the Federal Government have a right to take income
from citizens (with the threat of violence or incarceration) and use that money
to help some students pay for college and to create an educational bureaucracy
that dictates educational policies to States and school districts? I do not see
authority in the U.S. Constitution to do these things. If we're not going to
following Constitution why don't we just create other federal departments:
Department of Poison Control (who could be against that!), Department of
Restaurant Cleanliness and Safety, Department of Big Brother (oh, we got that
one already), Department of Cities and Towns (got to make sure cities and towns
have the appropriate policies), etc. <Sarcasm on> I suspect that people who
are against the Department of Poison Control must support mass poisoning and death!
<Sarcasm off>.
Ron Paul believe that when the Federal Government funnels money to a particular
sector of the economy (even for good intentions), it drastically raises prices
in that sector (over time). The housing bubble with Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac
plus the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low is a good example.
Education prices are unbelievably high compared to what it was when I was in
college (even factoring in the official government CPI). Getting the Federal
Government out of the education sector would reduce the price of education
significantly. Fortunately, students understand his position on education and
support him in droves.
Here are some videos about this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rgLG4i0kW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbYBZIfN4Vg
Dr. Paul is not for closing public schools.
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.
A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to
campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse
that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform.
Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series , Dec 23, 2007
In 1988 he was expressing the Libertarian philosophy as far as school being under
local control and privatized. But he did not say that he would abolish public schools.
========================
"He's managed to score a perfect 0 for environmentalism (according to the LCV)."
He scores low for environmentalism because he votes against environmental
legislation that is unconstitutional -- where the Federal Government has
no jurisdiction. His oath is to uphold the U.S. Constitution not to vote
"Yes" on every law related to the environment. Fortunately, his plan for
protecting the environment is fairly good (in my opinion) even though it
doesn't mesh with the wishes of the League of Conservation Voters.
If Ron Paul was such an anti-environment candidate, he would have been
getting regular and significant donations from chemical companies and
other companies that profit more by polluting. You'd see Dow Chemical and
Monsanto giving multimillion dollar donations to PACs for Ron Paul. It
is Romney and Obama that are getting the money from large multinational
corporations, not Ron Paul.
The way it "works" now is that lobbyists for corporations get to write
laws on the environment and funnel them to paid off members of Congress.
Then former corporate executives and/or lobbyists get appointed to write
or oversee regulations for their pals. Presidents get elected by collecting
huge amounts of money from these corporations so they can appoint former
executives to run various government agencies.
Because these corporations control much of the government decision-making,
they get to define what is and is not considered pollution. For example,
Monsanto is responsible to the uncontrolled release of genetically
manipulated plants around the country. Is it a environmental and human
health catastrophe in the making? Some experts say it is, e.g.,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechnology.php . But if a corporation or two
can control the Federal Government, then you can convince much of the
population (and apparently the League of Conservation Voters) that it
isn't of much of a concern. As to my example related to Monsanto, does
it control parts of the Federal Government? Here are some links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tell-Obama-To-Cease-FDA-Ties-to-Monsanto/105907189534363
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYO2k_o16E0
There are many other examples of our current system letting the polluters
define what is and what is not considered pollution.
A good portion of new poisoning of the environment and the general population
with the blessing of the Federal Government goes away under a Ron Paul
administration.
Ron Paul wants at least a good portion of environmental laws and regulations
to be at the State level. At least that way, it would be easier for the people
to effect a change to protect themselves and their industries. The government
would be much more aggressive going after fraud and property rights violations
so that polluters would have trouble getting away with polluting.
Here is an interesting mini-debate he has on the issue with Jon Stewart in
which I think both make interesting points:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-26-2011/ron-paul-pt--2
Another big issue related to the environment is that Ron Paul wants to allow
for growing hemp. Hemp products seem endless and can be a renewable source
of many products without destroying the environment: paper, insulation, fabrics
building materials, plastic alternative, body care products, fuel, etc.
But if clear-cutting and poisoning the environment rather than allowing for
a renewable alternative is what you want, then Obama or Romney is your man!
=========================
"He opposes the voting rights act and the civil rights act."
Ron Paul supported much of the Civil Rights Act, but was against
the part of the law pertaining to private property rights and
therefore would have voted against it on a Constitutional basis.
He was strongly in favor of repealing the laws related to segregation
and the Jim Crow laws.
This is a perfect example of a Bill where numerous items are bundled
together and it you would have voted against the Bill because one or
two of many sections would have caused you to violate your oath of
office, then some people will try to portray you as being against
everything in the Bill.
While it is abhorrent, he thinks that their should not be a Federal law
prohibiting people from discriminating on their own private property.
For example, an African American owner of a restaurant could decide not
to serve a large group of Caucasian persons wearing white robes and
buttons saying "KKK Member."
Here is a video with the interviewer actually lets him answer without
interrupting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsDlfAjI3kg
======================
"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."
He does not want to take away the rights of people to vote for their
representatives and certainly doesn't want an "electoral college"
involved in the vote for senators. But he does want to repeal the
17th amendment since there was a good reason that the founders
originally decided to elect the U.S. House of Representatives by the
people and the U.S. Senate by the State Representatives.
Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to have State Representatives
appoint a U.S. Senator as a necessary evil to provide a safeguard
from the States losing their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
See Federalist Essay #59:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=807
The idea was not only to protect States' rights as laid out in the
Constitution, but to protect from an over-reaching Federal Government
and from excessive influence of monied special interests. There is
an essay available at:
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=450
Here is an excerpt:
"Jay S. Bybee ('Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism and the Sirens’
Song of the Seventeenth Amendment,' Northwestern University Law Review 91
[Forthcoming, Winter 1997]) argues that the primary purpose of having state
legislatures elect senators was to give the states a constituent part in
the federal government, thereby appeasing the anti-federalists, protecting
the states from federal encroachment, and creating and preserving the
structure of federalism. Senators were seen as, and acted as, the states’
'ambassadors' to the federal government, representing the states and their
interests."
"The Senate was also an important part of the bicameral legislature. The
ability of factions or special interests to capture control of the federal
government was mitigated by requiring bills to receive the approval of the
public, speaking through their representatives in the House, and the approval
of the state legislatures, speaking through their representatives in the
Senate. The transition to direct election made the constituencies represented
in the House and Senate more similar, thereby facilitating creation of
logrolling agreements across the two houses of the national legislature.
Moreover, it made the procurement of special-interest legislation easier by
allowing special interests to lobby the Senate directly, rather than having
to proceed through the intermediaries of the state legislatures. In an era
of increasing interstate commerce, accompanied by the development of groups
whose interests crossed state lines, these 'economies of scale' in lobbying
were critical. Direct election thereby weakened the protections of bicameralism
and made special-interest legislation easier to obtain (Zywicki, pp. 1039–47)."
Unlike some Presidents who would like to just dictate what the laws should be,
Dr. Paul would have no authority to repeal the 17th Amendment by itself. There
would have to be a discussion and process by the States to make that change.
=========================
"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."
First of all, you won't be getting any significant increase in job availability
with Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. They will continue to do exactly
what was done to get us in this mess in the first place. Almost all of the
people who predicted this recession (depression) know it will only get much
worse without some of the changes described by Ron Paul. So if you enjoy voting
for economic destruction, more undeclared wars, police state, etc., good luck
to you.
I believe he answered this question poorly. But I can hardly blame him. After
probably hundreds (if not thousands) of interviews, I don't think he can be
blamed if he occasionally has difficulty distilling his viewpoint into a
30-60 second answer.
From what he has said, I believe that he does not see a role for the Federal
Government in making these laws (since it is not outlined in the Constitution
as a role for the Federal Government), but would not fight a State law. In
addition, remedies for an individual would be:
1. State Law if it exists
2. Lawsuit
3. Leaving the Job
4. Calling the police if other laws were violated.
============================
Twoggle
Recently, I urged the campaign to put together more detailed responses
written and/or video on these and other issues that Dr. Paul is
sometimes attacked on.
"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."
If one gets their information about Ron Paul from the mainstream media
or from the occasional blogger who hates Ron Paul and misconstrues his
ideas, it is expected to see a list of "he voted against this," "he
supports that," etc. without any context or detailed look at why he voted
a particular way. We will probably see more of what I call "hit-and-run"
type attacks where a long list of one sentence attacks are posted. A more
intellectually honest way of disagreeing with Dr. Paul would be to list
what he did, *accurately* describe his reasoning for doing what he did
and then stating disagreements with Dr. Paul's reasoning.
His "ideological perspective" is very simple in that he will support a
Federal law if:
1. He thinks it is a good idea for the country; and
2. He considers it Constitutional
I have seen rare exceptions, especially in relation to repealing
what he considers unconstitutional laws. He will often be against
the immediate repeal in some cases because he sees a need for
transition (and can in some cases take decades).
One other very important point is that the way most Bills are written
is a combination of many sections, some of which may or may not be
Constitutional and some of which may or may not be good for the Country.
In cases where there are some good and bad things in the Bill, a vote
either for or against the Bill can lead to knee-jerk attacks and being
portrayed as either for or against the entire Bill.
What is particularly sad is to see people actually attacks Dr. Paul's
views without even considering the U.S. Constitution. Every President
and Member of Congress takes an oath of office:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the
office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Their oath doesn't involve defending a lobbyist (all of which avoid Dr. Paul)
or the Federal Government, or good ideas, or really great laws, or your
political party, etc. The oath is about defending the U.S. Constitution.
Without defending this framework of rules, then society gradually descends
into chaos and/or tyranny. In this way, we get the Federal Government that
starts to ban all sorts of things that they are given no authority over. We
see the Federal Government authorizing the killing of its own citizens without
judicial review. We see undeclared wars started by the President as well
as secret bombing attacks in various countries. We see money taken from
citizens to fund banksters, given to governments so they can buy our weapons
(and fund the war machine), given to countries that abuse (and even boil alive)
their citizens. We see spying on American citizens, attempts to control the
Internet, even the possibility of military detention of citizens without
allowing representation. We also see countless cases of possible corporate
crime that is ignored. We see the gradual destruction of the middle class
and the corruption of our bought-and-paid-for "representatives." In my opinion,
this is all expected when you ignore the Constitution and support whatever
someone happens to think is a good idea at the time.
Fortunately, I think people are waking up to the need to get back to the
U.S. Constitution even though the document isn't perfect.
===================
"He said that don't ask don't tell was a "decent policy" in 2007, then voted
for its repeal in 2011."
See full context of his answer at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU
Ron Paul supports not asking employees about their sexual preferences.
He also supports a law that removes people exhibiting disruptive
behavior from the military (see video above). However, he saw that
the way the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) law was applied ended up
discriminating against good people (and was not applied to just
disruptive behavior). That is why he voted to repeal DADT.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/ron-paul-reversal-dadt
===============
"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."
The definition of marriage is obviously not a federal issue. There is nothing
in the constitution alluding to marriage. The 10th Amendment States:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."
He supported the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The Iowa legislature
voted for that law because they did not want the Federal Government dictating
to the states how they should define marriage. Federal Courts should not have
jurisdiction because these decisions should be up to the States and/or the
people according to the 10th Amendment. He was consistent: He supported a
state law claimed that it was not a federal issue.
Now his own personal preference is not really relevant because he takes seriously
his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. In other words, he supports the States'
rights to make laws -- some of which he would agree and some he would disagree with.
For example, he thinks while hallucinogenic drugs can be dangerous, he thinks we
would be better off as a society if we just legalized them and treated addictions
as a disease and only prosecute when others are harmed. But he does support States
rights to make certain drugs illegal. On the other hand, he is against abortion and
would support States' rights to make laws about abortion.
Here is a video answer he gave about marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0NqJFMAlg
Keep in mind that this was only a 1 minute answer and he has much more about
this in his book.
====================
"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."
That is not what Dr. Paul said. He did say that sodomy laws such as the one in Texas
was "ridiculous." Even though he was strongly against such a state law, he was
also against the Federal Government dictating to the states that they cannot establish
their own standards for sexual conduct based on what he considers a significant
misreading of the U.S. Constitution. See his statement at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
Some may believe that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in all cases where
a state passes laws on sexual standards. But Dr. Paul's criticism of the decision
should not be misconstrued as somehow supporting that Texas law.
=======================
"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"
No, he's not okay with State governments reading your emails. He has said numerous
times that States will sometimes pass bad laws that need to be changed. But his
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is that the generic idea of "privacy" is
not a right. But certain aspects of privacy are protected, e.g., "...nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
He is clearly concerned about privacy as can be seem from:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-liberties/
The way to fix problems with State governments reading your emails (your example)
might be to:
1. Work to put protections in State government constitutions (or laws) to protect
against this type of activity.
2. Work to create an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if necessary.
3. Use existing Amendments where applicable to defend individual rights. For
example, the Federal Government should be able to prevent the State Government
from reading your emails without due process of law -- judicial warrant (provided
those emails are considered your private property).
But I think he is against just allowing the Federal Government to "protect" us
just because some people think it is a good idea. If it is such a good idea, lets
amend the U.S. Constitution.
========================
"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."
I have no idea what votes are being talked about here. The votes I am aware of
related primarily to either giving abortion decisions to the States (Sanctity of
Life Act and We The People Act) and defining from a Federal Government perspective
when life begins (Sanctity of Life Act). Some people would label support for these
Acts as "limiting abortion rights." He did vote for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Act. Even though he is personally against abortion, he voted against restricting
minors from interstate travel to get abortions.
========================
"He is supposedly against the death penalty as part of his 'pro life stance' but
supports a states right to execute people."
Here is what he says on the death penalty:
"This is one issue in which my views have shifted in recent years, especially since
being elected to Congress. There was a time I simply stated that I supported the
death penalty. Now my views are not so clearly defined. I do not support the
federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official,
interfere with the individual states that impose it."
"After years spent in Washington, I have become more aware than ever of the government’s
ineptness and the likelihood of its making mistakes. I no longer trust the
U.S. government to invoke and carry out a death sentence under any conditions.
Too many convictions, not necessarily federal, have been found to be in error,
but only after years of incarcerating innocent people who later were released
on DNA evidence."
"Rich people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death. Most
people believe O. J. Simpson was guilty of murder but went free. This leads to a
situation where innocent people without enough money are more likely to get the
death penalty while the guilty rich people with good lawyers get off. For me
it’s much easier just to eliminate the ultimate penalty and incarcerate the
guilty for life—in case later evidence proves a mistaken conviction. The cost
of incarceration is likely less than it is for death penalty appeals drawn out
not for years but for decades."
You can see that he is against the death penalty, but takes his oath of office
seriously and will not impose his views on the States.
=======================
"He has actively campaigned to abolish public schools, financial aid for college,
and in fact the entire department of education."
Under what authority does the Federal Government have a right to take income
from citizens (with the threat of violence or incarceration) and use that money
to help some students pay for college and to create an educational bureaucracy
that dictates educational policies to States and school districts? I do not see
authority in the U.S. Constitution to do these things. If we're not going to
following Constitution why don't we just create other federal departments:
Department of Poison Control (who could be against that!), Department of
Restaurant Cleanliness and Safety, Department of Big Brother (oh, we got that
one already), Department of Cities and Towns (got to make sure cities and towns
have the appropriate policies), etc. <Sarcasm on> I suspect that people who
are against the Department of Poison Control must support mass poisoning and death!
<Sarcasm off>.
Ron Paul believe that when the Federal Government funnels money to a particular
sector of the economy (even for good intentions), it drastically raises prices
in that sector (over time). The housing bubble with Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac
plus the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low is a good example.
Education prices are unbelievably high compared to what it was when I was in
college (even factoring in the official government CPI). Getting the Federal
Government out of the education sector would reduce the price of education
significantly. Fortunately, students understand his position on education and
support him in droves.
Here are some videos about this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rgLG4i0kW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbYBZIfN4Vg
Dr. Paul is not for closing public schools.
Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.
A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to
campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse
that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform.
Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series , Dec 23, 2007
In 1988 he was expressing the Libertarian philosophy as far as school being under
local control and privatized. But he did not say that he would abolish public schools.
========================
"He's managed to score a perfect 0 for environmentalism (according to the LCV)."
He scores low for environmentalism because he votes against environmental
legislation that is unconstitutional -- where the Federal Government has
no jurisdiction. His oath is to uphold the U.S. Constitution not to vote
"Yes" on every law related to the environment. Fortunately, his plan for
protecting the environment is fairly good (in my opinion) even though it
doesn't mesh with the wishes of the League of Conservation Voters.
If Ron Paul was such an anti-environment candidate, he would have been
getting regular and significant donations from chemical companies and
other companies that profit more by polluting. You'd see Dow Chemical and
Monsanto giving multimillion dollar donations to PACs for Ron Paul. It
is Romney and Obama that are getting the money from large multinational
corporations, not Ron Paul.
The way it "works" now is that lobbyists for corporations get to write
laws on the environment and funnel them to paid off members of Congress.
Then former corporate executives and/or lobbyists get appointed to write
or oversee regulations for their pals. Presidents get elected by collecting
huge amounts of money from these corporations so they can appoint former
executives to run various government agencies.
Because these corporations control much of the government decision-making,
they get to define what is and is not considered pollution. For example,
Monsanto is responsible to the uncontrolled release of genetically
manipulated plants around the country. Is it a environmental and human
health catastrophe in the making? Some experts say it is, e.g.,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/biotechnology.php . But if a corporation or two
can control the Federal Government, then you can convince much of the
population (and apparently the League of Conservation Voters) that it
isn't of much of a concern. As to my example related to Monsanto, does
it control parts of the Federal Government? Here are some links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tell-Obama-To-Cease-FDA-Ties-to-Monsanto/105907189534363
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYO2k_o16E0
There are many other examples of our current system letting the polluters
define what is and what is not considered pollution.
A good portion of new poisoning of the environment and the general population
with the blessing of the Federal Government goes away under a Ron Paul
administration.
Ron Paul wants at least a good portion of environmental laws and regulations
to be at the State level. At least that way, it would be easier for the people
to effect a change to protect themselves and their industries. The government
would be much more aggressive going after fraud and property rights violations
so that polluters would have trouble getting away with polluting.
Here is an interesting mini-debate he has on the issue with Jon Stewart in
which I think both make interesting points:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-26-2011/ron-paul-pt--2
Another big issue related to the environment is that Ron Paul wants to allow
for growing hemp. Hemp products seem endless and can be a renewable source
of many products without destroying the environment: paper, insulation, fabrics
building materials, plastic alternative, body care products, fuel, etc.
But if clear-cutting and poisoning the environment rather than allowing for
a renewable alternative is what you want, then Obama or Romney is your man!
=========================
"He opposes the voting rights act and the civil rights act."
Ron Paul supported much of the Civil Rights Act, but was against
the part of the law pertaining to private property rights and
therefore would have voted against it on a Constitutional basis.
He was strongly in favor of repealing the laws related to segregation
and the Jim Crow laws.
This is a perfect example of a Bill where numerous items are bundled
together and it you would have voted against the Bill because one or
two of many sections would have caused you to violate your oath of
office, then some people will try to portray you as being against
everything in the Bill.
While it is abhorrent, he thinks that their should not be a Federal law
prohibiting people from discriminating on their own private property.
For example, an African American owner of a restaurant could decide not
to serve a large group of Caucasian persons wearing white robes and
buttons saying "KKK Member."
Here is a video with the interviewer actually lets him answer without
interrupting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsDlfAjI3kg
======================
"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."
He does not want to take away the rights of people to vote for their
representatives and certainly doesn't want an "electoral college"
involved in the vote for senators. But he does want to repeal the
17th amendment since there was a good reason that the founders
originally decided to elect the U.S. House of Representatives by the
people and the U.S. Senate by the State Representatives.
Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to have State Representatives
appoint a U.S. Senator as a necessary evil to provide a safeguard
from the States losing their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
See Federalist Essay #59:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=807
The idea was not only to protect States' rights as laid out in the
Constitution, but to protect from an over-reaching Federal Government
and from excessive influence of monied special interests. There is
an essay available at:
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=450
Here is an excerpt:
"Jay S. Bybee ('Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism and the Sirens’
Song of the Seventeenth Amendment,' Northwestern University Law Review 91
[Forthcoming, Winter 1997]) argues that the primary purpose of having state
legislatures elect senators was to give the states a constituent part in
the federal government, thereby appeasing the anti-federalists, protecting
the states from federal encroachment, and creating and preserving the
structure of federalism. Senators were seen as, and acted as, the states’
'ambassadors' to the federal government, representing the states and their
interests."
"The Senate was also an important part of the bicameral legislature. The
ability of factions or special interests to capture control of the federal
government was mitigated by requiring bills to receive the approval of the
public, speaking through their representatives in the House, and the approval
of the state legislatures, speaking through their representatives in the
Senate. The transition to direct election made the constituencies represented
in the House and Senate more similar, thereby facilitating creation of
logrolling agreements across the two houses of the national legislature.
Moreover, it made the procurement of special-interest legislation easier by
allowing special interests to lobby the Senate directly, rather than having
to proceed through the intermediaries of the state legislatures. In an era
of increasing interstate commerce, accompanied by the development of groups
whose interests crossed state lines, these 'economies of scale' in lobbying
were critical. Direct election thereby weakened the protections of bicameralism
and made special-interest legislation easier to obtain (Zywicki, pp. 1039–47)."
Unlike some Presidents who would like to just dictate what the laws should be,
Dr. Paul would have no authority to repeal the 17th Amendment by itself. There
would have to be a discussion and process by the States to make that change.
=========================
"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."
First of all, you won't be getting any significant increase in job availability
with Obama, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. They will continue to do exactly
what was done to get us in this mess in the first place. Almost all of the
people who predicted this recession (depression) know it will only get much
worse without some of the changes described by Ron Paul. So if you enjoy voting
for economic destruction, more undeclared wars, police state, etc., good luck
to you.
I believe he answered this question poorly. But I can hardly blame him. After
probably hundreds (if not thousands) of interviews, I don't think he can be
blamed if he occasionally has difficulty distilling his viewpoint into a
30-60 second answer.
From what he has said, I believe that he does not see a role for the Federal
Government in making these laws (since it is not outlined in the Constitution
as a role for the Federal Government), but would not fight a State law. In
addition, remedies for an individual would be:
1. State Law if it exists
2. Lawsuit
3. Leaving the Job
4. Calling the police if other laws were violated.
============================
Twoggle
lol, the independence of India has little to do with India/Pakistan issue. They constantly rejected Gandhi's economy philosophy, and on top of that, there was clear discrimination in India at the time (I believe the Muslims created their own political movement to have a voice in British hearings). Ultimately, British shoved the Muslims to Pakistan and Bangladesh, and left India to a psuedo-communist party.
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,475
I have a relatively intimate knowledge of the Fed. I could go into detail about discount windows, primary dealers, etc... however the only thing I need to know is this: The Fed steals money from me by printing money out of thin air and giving it to the banks.
This is factually accurate, and all the information one needs to know to make an informed decision on the subject. All the other reasons to dislike the fed - such as the boom & bust cycle, the rapid uncontrollable expansion of government, etc, are simply (strong) supporting arguments.
dvalukis
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2011
- Messages
- 91
I've met and spoke with people like your friend. While they're very smart, all they're logic comes back to the idea of people in government behaving like they should behave. I guess you could say they're idealists. And they're correct. But I support Ron Paul as a solution to the inevitable faults in human behavior. In a perfect world, everyone should have the opportunity to a higher education, the government should help protect the environment. They should protect the people from harmful foods and make companies disclose what ingredients are in what we eat. There should be funding for technologies, cancer research, investment in the arts, and on and on and on...
But then who gets what? Out of this 4 trillion dollar pie who gets what? What voices are heard loudest on Capitol Hill? Social organizations? Lobbyists? You? Me?... A lot of times it comes down to what's not best for everyone. but whose got the deepest pockets. You can't refute that. That's one single argument you can make and nobody can call you on.
So in this current climate what is best for the people? It is to take the enormous power centralized in Washington D.C. and spread it out around the country. (i.e. Less Federal control, less taxation, and so on.) People like your friend and one's I've talked to are the people that should be running for office. One of my friend's basically has the same critique of Ron Paul. He's a Quantum Physics PhD student who is out of this world smart. His research funding relies solely on government grants that he has to prepare and apply for. And in a Libertarian Government he most likely wouldn't be doing 90% of his research so I understand where he's coming from. But their arguments aren't pragmatic. The THINK they are, but what's happening in gov't today clearly isn't.
That's the big kicker. Supporters of Ron Paul and the man himself, people like to throw around the word ideological at us. But that's quite the opposite. THEY'RE the ones being ideological and breaking the natural order of things. A simple economics class taught me the impacts of instituting a minimum wage and what price fixing does to markets. The Ron Paul rEVOLution isn't meant to be some ideological movement, it's actually PRAGMATIC solutions to problems we currently face today.
I'm sure as you check out each of his accusations you'll find why Ron voted the way he did on each. Every time a journalist tried a "gotcha" question on his voting record with him, I was always left with, "Oh, good call. I get it." Sometimes it's a small provision in a Bill that he didn't like or that the legislation was trying to achieve an alliterative motive. You never know all the circumstances.
But then who gets what? Out of this 4 trillion dollar pie who gets what? What voices are heard loudest on Capitol Hill? Social organizations? Lobbyists? You? Me?... A lot of times it comes down to what's not best for everyone. but whose got the deepest pockets. You can't refute that. That's one single argument you can make and nobody can call you on.
So in this current climate what is best for the people? It is to take the enormous power centralized in Washington D.C. and spread it out around the country. (i.e. Less Federal control, less taxation, and so on.) People like your friend and one's I've talked to are the people that should be running for office. One of my friend's basically has the same critique of Ron Paul. He's a Quantum Physics PhD student who is out of this world smart. His research funding relies solely on government grants that he has to prepare and apply for. And in a Libertarian Government he most likely wouldn't be doing 90% of his research so I understand where he's coming from. But their arguments aren't pragmatic. The THINK they are, but what's happening in gov't today clearly isn't.
That's the big kicker. Supporters of Ron Paul and the man himself, people like to throw around the word ideological at us. But that's quite the opposite. THEY'RE the ones being ideological and breaking the natural order of things. A simple economics class taught me the impacts of instituting a minimum wage and what price fixing does to markets. The Ron Paul rEVOLution isn't meant to be some ideological movement, it's actually PRAGMATIC solutions to problems we currently face today.
I'm sure as you check out each of his accusations you'll find why Ron voted the way he did on each. Every time a journalist tried a "gotcha" question on his voting record with him, I was always left with, "Oh, good call. I get it." Sometimes it's a small provision in a Bill that he didn't like or that the legislation was trying to achieve an alliterative motive. You never know all the circumstances.
jointhefightforfreedom
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,090
Captain Shays
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,368
They "thought" that they were "informed" but most people that I know who voted for Obama simply hated Bush and Republicans and were the same one's who cited to me over the years all sort of conspiracy theories about Bush and blamed him for everything from cloudy days to their mother's giving birth to them in a back alley.
They were "informed" by strictly liberal blogs, mainstream media and each other. Few to none cared a bit about the Constitution, freedom or prosperity. They couldn't and still can't grasp the fact that Democrats were and still are the original war party, police the world party, the one world govt party, the freedom robbing-anti individual choice party. To them it's all "Republican bad bad bad-Democrat good good good". They are every bit as irrational as ANY loyal partisan whether Republican or Democrat and maybe even more so. To this day most of the people who voted for Obama will say NOTHING about his globocop trots into Libya, Uganda, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan or his broken promises relative to Iraq and Afghanistan. They say nothing about his corporate welfare, bail outs and buy outs or his freedom robbing re-authorization of the Patriot Act, signing of NDAA or support of SOPA and his continued authoritarianism relative to the war on drugs-medical marijuani raids in California.
I am actually talking baout some of my closest friends here by the way along with people I encounter on a daily basis.
The partisan mind is inherently an irrational mind no matter what level of intelligence or how many years of formal education. In fact, I am becoming more and more convinced that the longer one remains in a formal educational setting, the less rational they become.
Captain Shays
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,368
Actually I think most of the drugs that are illegal became illegal along with alcohol in the 18th Amendment though I'm not sure about pot on that one. After the 18th was repealed and alcohol became legal again the drugs remained illegal through the interstate commerce clause.
We're $16 trillion in debt, and climbing fast.
60% oppose the Iraq occupation.
63% oppose the invasion of Afghanistan.
60% oppose war with Iran.
And you want to dissect a random handful of Ron Paul's supporters' abilities to articulate the planks of his platform?
I'll do it for you: RP supporters know which candidate promises to end the wars and immediately move to shrink the federal government and its spending. They also know which candidate will do what he promises to do. In fact, that singular candidate stands out like the sun in a cave vs all of the others.
That doesn't make RP supporters any smarter than anyone else, it just shows how blind those who don't see it are.
The "I don't like some of his supporters" line is so fucking lame it sucks the oxygen out of the discussion.
Bosso
60% oppose the Iraq occupation.
63% oppose the invasion of Afghanistan.
60% oppose war with Iran.
And you want to dissect a random handful of Ron Paul's supporters' abilities to articulate the planks of his platform?
I'll do it for you: RP supporters know which candidate promises to end the wars and immediately move to shrink the federal government and its spending. They also know which candidate will do what he promises to do. In fact, that singular candidate stands out like the sun in a cave vs all of the others.
That doesn't make RP supporters any smarter than anyone else, it just shows how blind those who don't see it are.
The "I don't like some of his supporters" line is so fucking lame it sucks the oxygen out of the discussion.
Bosso
Similar threads
- Featured
