MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Infinity

Refugee
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
1,188
So...Ron Paul

We were having all our Ron Paul discussions in the Huckabee thread, so I thought i'd make a new thread for the Congressman.

By the way, over $6 million raised yesterday. All time best in a single day for any politician in the history of the nation.

"Candidate has most successful fundraising day in American political history

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign had a record fundraising day yesterday.

In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry."

RonPaul2008.com
 
Ron Paul once ran as a Libertarian candidate.
*switched to Republican to get elected.

Wrong move methinks.


Imagine the American people voting for freedom, not more big, intrusive government.
 
Is he not insane as well? Must admit I haven't read much about him. Anyone able to point to a good article that isn't propaganda one way or the other?
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Less so than the others. Here's his site if you're interested:

www.ronpaul2008.com

Angela

Just read through his 'issues' page. He doesn't seem batshit crazy as much as well researched, ie he knows his target audience perfectly. Whether his target audience are batshit crazy or not though....
 
I think he's nuts, but at least he's nuts and entertaining.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


Just read through his 'issues' page. He doesn't seem batshit crazy as much as well researched, ie he knows his target audience perfectly. Whether his target audience are batshit crazy or not though....

His issues page is total BS. Read the taxes one, how he talks around what he actually wants to do, which is raise the national sales tax to 23% while abolishing income tax completely. Only an insane person would come up with an idea so stupid, but then again it fits in perfectly with the Republican motto of "I got mine, fuck you." It is completely contrary to any rational tax model, since it violates both the concepts of neutrality and equality, but hey he'll find some looney segment of the population to buy into this.

That's just one of his nutbag ideas. I won't even get into lowering the prosecution age to specifically target black male youth (down to 13, btw).
 
Ron Paul is not a true libertarian. Instead, he is what one would call a "paleolibertarian"; that is, a so-called "libertarian" who focuses on "economic freedom," while holding socially conservative positions.

In other words, Ron Paul is a conservative Republican.

His positions on gay rights, in particular, are so backwards to the point that I cannot stand the man.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996) which limited the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize "same-sex marriages" performed in other states if they so choose. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

...

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." If made law, these provisions would allow states to regulate sexual practices and "same-sex marriage" independently.

...

Ron Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website he wrote:

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

So here's the question I'd like to ask Ron Paul:

If a state decided to re-legalize racial segregation, would he support the "state's right" to do so? And if he didn't, why not? Doesn't the state have the right to regulate "social matters" using "local standards"? :rolleyes:

Paul is just another conservative Republican wearing libertarian clothes. It is, frankly, no wonder why most self-professed libertarians are considered to be jokes in American politics.

He deserves to lose.
 
anitram said:
His issues page is total BS. Read the taxes one, how he talks around what he actually wants to do, which is raise the national sales tax to 23% while abolishing income tax completely. Only an insane person would come up with an idea so stupid, but then again it fits in perfectly with the Republican motto of "I got mine, fuck you." It is completely contrary to any rational tax model, since it violates both the concepts of neutrality and equality, but hey he'll find some looney segment of the population to buy into this.

Let's not forget that he also wants us to return to the gold standard, just so he can fulfill some macho fantasy about a "strong dollar." No other nation does this, and no sane economist backs this idea either. There is such a thing as making your currency so valuable as to make your nation undesirable for global trade. And, secondly, rather than the "soft recessions" we've had over the last 30 years or so, a return to the gold standard risks periodic "hard recessions," if not outright economic depressions, due to the gold standard's inherent monetary inflexibility.

The more I read about Paul, the more I see Pat Buchanan, not a libertarian. I also know that there's a rather large anti-war sentiment out there, and for good reason. However, it is not a good enough reason to elect a bad candidate on all the other matters of importance.
 
martha said:


If it doesn't will he take his money and run as a spoiler?

Excuse me, I mean third-party candidate. You know, the kind that helps the opposing party win the election.

It's quite possible...but who knows.

I have a feeling whatever happens on January 3rd, people will be surprised.
 
U2democrat said:
It'll be interesting to see if the crapload of money he's been raising turns into votes.

This is interesting.

I don't know how many of you know, but my cousin ran against him in TX, first timer young democrat, lost only by a small margin(given the circumstances), he decided to back out of the next election because Paul could use all of his left over funds to run against him.
 
anitram said:


His issues page is total BS. Read the taxes one, how he talks around what he actually wants to do, which is raise the national sales tax to 23% while abolishing income tax completely. Only an insane person would come up with an idea so stupid, but then again it fits in perfectly with the Republican motto of "I got mine, fuck you." It is completely contrary to any rational tax model, since it violates both the concepts of neutrality and equality, but hey he'll find some looney segment of the population to buy into this.

That's just one of his nutbag ideas. I won't even get into lowering the prosecution age to specifically target black male youth (down to 13, btw).

Bullshit. It doesn't say anywhere that he wants to raise the national sales tax to 23%. He wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING. Think it is not practical? If there were no income taxes collected in 2006, the Federal Government would have earned the same amount of tax revenues as in the year 2000. So there is nothing crazy about abolishing the income tax. And remember, he IS NOT GOING TO RAISE ANY OTHER TAX.

Secondly, he introduced a proposal to abolish the tax on tips for waiters, etc. I think that shows he is not just in politics to care for the rich.

Do a little research before you go on a rant.
 
coemgen said:
Although, I must say, the grassroots effort by his supporters is pretty incredible.

It is, but I think it merely furthers the adage that Americans vote on image, not substance.

Ron Paul has a great image, as long as one bothers to not go any deeper than the surface.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this is just a mockup, I found it on Google


120907_ronpaulblimp.jpg
 
Infinitum98 said:


Bullshit. It doesn't say anywhere that he wants to raise the national sales tax to 23%. He wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING.

From the horse's mouth:

4. It has been suggested that the IRS should be eliminated. Do you believe that this makes sense, and if you do, what would you establish in its place?

I have advocated eliminating the IRS for my entire political career. The IRS could be replaced with a flat tax or national sales tax...

Repealing income tax is idiotic. Replacing it with a flat or national sales tax is idiotic and contrary to the Haig-Simons model. Ron Paul seems to have little economic acumen.
 
Infinitum98 said:


Do a little research before you go on a rant.

I always do research.

Ron Paul supports the Fair Tax Bill, which advocates a 23% fair tax (sales tax). It is no secret he's a supporter of this.
 
Allow me to recycle a point I made earlier here...

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." - Ron Paul

Then I asked what Paul would do if a state voted to reinstate racial segregation. Would he support "states' rights" in this instance?

I'm sure some of you think it to be a preposterous question in the first place, but, from a 19th century POV, it certainly was not.

[Former President John] Tyler (1841-1845) had long been an advocate of states' rights, believing that the question of a state's "free" or "slave" status ought to be decided at the state level, with no input from federal government.

I hope this underscores the injustice of making minority rights and freedoms subject to the tyranny of the majority.
 
anitram said:


I always do research.

Ron Paul supports the Fair Tax Bill, which advocates a 23% fair tax (sales tax). It is no secret he's a supporter of this.

Okay, if he had to choose between the fair tax and the income tax, he would pick the fair tax.

But he has said time and time again during his campaign, including just tonight on the Glen Beck show that he wants to replace the income tax with NOTHING. He said that if there was no income tax, the government would be getting the same amount of revenues as 10 years ago and that he would just cut spending.

So, as President, he will do all he can to get rid of the IRS and the income tax. And he will not replace it with anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom