Ron Paul - Views and consequences.
  • I am not American and follow the politics very loosely but lately I kept seeing the name of Ron Paul pop up. What I would like to know is opinion of somebody more informed on what his views are and what kind of consequences of his election for US and world wide would there be. I'd be happy to hear personal opinions and links to professional annalists on the issue.
  • He's a Republican that leans Libertarian. His views are that there should be a small Federal Government, and most decisions should be made by individual States. He's a big follower of the Constitution, and one of the only Politicians that actually value individual Liberty (freedom). He believes we should return to the Gold Standard in order to have sound (legit) money, and he also believes that we should keep out of other Nations internal affairs (and wants us out of other Nations so we can stop wasteing money and interfering in your lives).

    I don't agree with everything the man says, but the fact that he values individual liberty, wants a smaller Federal Government, and wants to stop intervening all around the world, makes him the one Presidential candidate on both sides that I don't hate.

    For other people's views on him, I'll give you the short version for everyone.

    The Liberals/Democrats will say:

    "He's crazy, we need Big Government. How else are we supposed to take care of the sick and poor. It's not like they are capable of taking care of themselves or have people within their lives who will help them, that's insane. Also, he's racist, sure he denounced writing in a paper he had nothing to do with long ago, but he's still racist."

    The Conservatives/Republicans will say:

    "He's crazy, and he hates America. He thinks we got what we deserved on 9/11, even though he never actually said that, because we were in the Middle East, and they didn't want us there, so they attacked. Also, he wants to turn everyone into a drug addict because he wants drugs to be legal considering the war on drugs is a massive failure and we've wasted billions of dollars on its failure. Oh, and he's an isolationist, despite the fact that he believes in free trade with other nations, because he wants us to stop intervening in Nations around the world."

    I'm sure I'm forgetting some of the rhetoric the left and right shove out their ass, but that sums up their views, mostly.

    It doesn't matter though. He is not going to get elected anyway. The media ignores the man, and people on both the left and the right who do pay him attention do all they can to smear the mans name. In regards to what the consequences of his election would be, well, we won't ever know. People can make up hypothesize on what would happen, but whatever hypothesis they come up with will simply be based upon their politica views. The liberals and conservatives will have demonizing hypothesis that will show whatever he says having bad results. The Libertarians(of which I am one of) will have nothing but good things to say, ignoring the fact that he is one man, and even if he were to try and do good work as a President, he'd have a status quo fighting against him. Even if he didn't have the status quo fighting him, this is the real world, there is no such thing as Utopia (no matter how hard the left or right might want to create one), and nothing is going to turn out perfectly.

    Personally, I'd like to think that with a man who does have some good ideas and a true respect for freedom as President, things would get a little better. Still, it's like I said, he's not going to get elected, so we'll never know.
  • "There is no such thing as Utopia (no matter how hard the left or right might want to create one), and nothing is going to turn out perfectly."
    That one definitely strikes a note. Well at least I can tell - " The more you know "
  • He's racist, homophobic, economically clueless, and basically wants America to become a federal-less, isolationist country. Easily one of the worst candidates around.

    The internet has a fetish for him for reasons I can't fathom. Very few Americans actually care about him.
  • The US Constitution is relatively poorly written. It's too short and lacks detail to successfully manage a nation of 300 million people. If Ron Paul strictly believes in it, he's an idiot. This nation would need a revolutionary change in order to function under a constitution alone. We rely too much on bureaucracy to keep nearly everything going.

    From what I've heard about him, the only good quality he possesses for me is his views on foreign spending. I believe he's strictly against military spending and would drastically cut defense spending as apart of his plan for small government. That's the only thing I like about him because I absolutely hate how the US is so heavily involved in the affairs of other nations.

    As for the rest of him, he's batshit crazy. I'd never vote for him ever. His views are so radical that his own party would never endorse him for president anyway.
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    He's economically clueless.


    So are all the other clowns running the global economy into the ground. We didn't get where we are under the leadership of economic genius.
  • Dr Flibble said:
    So are all the other clowns running the global economy into the ground. We didn't get where we are under the leadership of economic genius.


    Yes, but he takes it to an all new level. He wants to;

    Abolish the Federal Reserve.
    Return the US to the Gold Standard.
    Abolish all science funding.

    These three things alone would absolutely destroy America as a country. He has absolutely no knowledge of monetary policy. None.
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    Yes, but he takes it to an all new level. He wants to;

    Abolish the Federal Reserve.
    Return the US to the Gold Standard.
    Abolish all science funding.


    I can imagine the reasoning behind the first 2, but why is he against all science funding?
  • Dr Flibble said:
    I can imagine the reasoning behind the first 2, but why is he against all science funding?


    There is no reasoning behind the first two. The Fed was the best tool we had in combating the recession when the government got stalemated. The Fed was devised in part by business to help contain economic shocks. It is absolutely essential to the American economy.

    The third isn't even the beginning. He wants to remove the Department of Education, everything. NASA? Say goodbye to that, all you space lovers. He basically believes that any federal funding is evil.
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    There is no reasoning behind the first two. The Fed was the best tool we had in combating the recession when the government got stalemated. The Fed was devised by business to help contain economic shocks. It is absolutely essential to the American economy.

    The third isn't even the beginning. He wants to remove the Department of Education, everything. NASA? Say goodbye to that, all you space lovers. He basically believes that any federal funding is evil.


    I don't mean I think The Fed is shit. I mean I can imagine the type of argument he makes for getting rid of it. Every country has people somewhere saying similar things. In Japan there are crackpots that think we should reinstate the Emporer and rebuild our military, invade Asia, and force them all to use yen. :p

    So anyway science is evil, and therefore must be done away with? This is his stance? That's all he offers in way of explanation?
  • Dr Flibble said:
    I don't mean I think The Fed is shit. I mean I can imagine the type of argument he makes for getting rid of it. Every country has people somewhere saying similar things. In Japan there are crackpots that think we should reinstate the Emporer and rebuild our military, invade Asia, and force them all to use yen. :p

    So anyway science is evil, and therefore must be done away with? This is his stance? That's all he offers in way of explanation?


    Basically, yeah. He has an axe to grind against any and all federal funding, science, math, education included. I haven't really found anyone who can justify it, Paul included.

    Maybe you guys should invade, help even out the aging population. :P
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    Maybe you guys should invade, help even out the aging population. :P


    The elderly are too busy trying to keep the government out of their pension funds to risk hobbling off to bayonet some Chinese for Japanese glory. :p
  • He's a religious fundamentalist, which is my biggest issue with him. His religious views guide many of his domestic policies, and that is wrong. He views evolution as a theory, and nothing more.

    Bravo to the two party's showing up and fullfilling their stereotypes.

    Oh, and in regards to Dr. Paul being racist.

    [youtube][/youtube]

    Again, Dr. Paul has many views that I don't agree with, but then again, most every politician has essentially no views that I agree with. I don't like the nanny state and I don't like my money being used to send our soldiers into other Nations around the world, especially where we are not needed.

    Oh, and Fuzzy, what do you think should be added into the Constitution?
  • I don't know anything about politics, but he's the guy I hate the least. I'm still not voting for anybody. (DOOOOOOM! BOMB'S ANTI-AMERICAN CUZ HE AIN'T VOTIN' FUR PREZ'DINT! HE'S A TURRIST!)

    Anyway, the only reason I hate him less is because he seems to have at least some good ideas and I never hear about him, hence why I have less of an opinion of him. At least he's a little different than the status quo douchebags that will inevitably get elected every year until the US goes into a second civil war and we all end up on the losing end of a smoking crater or a totalitarian regime.
  • laphamking said:
    Bravo to the two party's showing up and fullfilling their stereotypes.


    Who did that?

    There are the racist newsletters. In 1996, he said he wrote them and agreed with them. In 2001, he said he didn't. Which is true? He went from claiming them and agreeing with them to disavowing them.

    "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."


    He blamed "needlin'" -- spreading AIDS via needles, on black gangs, saying they were infecting white women. He has a long, long history of things like this, some of his racist commentary is even worse.

    And then you look at his positions, and they just 'happen' to line up with white supremacists. Abolish the Department of Education? They are the single most important arm of maintaining desegregated schools. Say good bye to integrated schools in the south, if they go. But it's just an issue of government interference, right. He's hinted at removing MLK Jr. Day as a national holiday, but he's said anything from MLK is a hero, to a socialist, and that MLK Jr. Day is a good day, to a "whitey hate day." Who knows with him?
  • He disavowed those letters many times. In fact, he disavowed those letters mutliple times in 1 interview because a woman apparently doesn't understand the definition of disavow.

    Regarding your education comment, what century are you living in? Yes, there are anti-black sentiments in the South, but they are also up North. Not all white Southerners are racist, and the schools wouldn't magically become segregated over night. I'm not saying I want to see the dept of education completely elliminated (though it does need reform), but acting as if we're going to return to pre-Civil rights America if it does is just crazy dude.

    Regarding the MLK comments, I've never heard him say anything regarding MLK, so I can't comment on that.

    Finally, where did you get that opinion poll quote?
  • He's an interesting candidate, but just as much of a joke as any of the rest of them. I think we should vote in presidents based on how much comedic material they produce - that way we can laugh instead of cry about the bad decisions they are a part of. Obama was a bad choice because mocking him makes you a racist.
  • laphamking said:
    He disavowed those letters many times. In fact, he disavowed those letters mutliple times in 1 interview because a woman apparently doesn't understand the definition of disavow.


    Yes, but he has also claimed he did write them and agreed with them. Which is it?

    Regarding your education comment, what century are you living in? Yes, there are anti-black sentiments in the South, but they are also up North. Not all white Southerners are racist, and the schools wouldn't magically become segregated over night. I'm not saying I want to see the dept of education completely elliminated (though it does need reform), but acting as if we're going to return to pre-Civil rights America if it does is just crazy dude.


    Jefferson Parish, in Louisiana, still has federal case workers because it is not fully desegregated. Baton Rouge came into compliance just in the 2000s. Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina, among other states, also have multiple segregated school districts, still. Segregated school proms are still a reality in some rural areas. There are a lot of districts down south not in compliance with Brown vs. Board of Education. This would get much, much worse without the DoE.

    The 5% quote was from a 1990s newsletter.
  • The reason we don't hear about him so much is because he's got a high percentage of the independent vote. Those who fall under Paul's policies will not vote for Obama once Paul is knocked out. Be it Newt or Mitt (most likely Mitt), Paul's (I think it's) 15% of followers will end up voting for the republican candidate as long as they haven't opposed and targeted his philosophies. That 15% is why we don't hear much about Paul. It's going to be a crucial factor during the election.
  • I think this thread could have been closed just fine after the first post very well said Laphamking!
  • knowname said:
    I think this thread could have been closed just fine after the first post very well said Laphamking!

    Because forums are totally not about discussion or anything.

    I for one find the thread interest-ing and urge people to continue talk-ing.
  • RP seems to have interesting views on self sufficientcy, survivalism, and preparedness - as a result he has a large following among these folk from what I've seen online.

    This may also translate to a partial green vote, because a lot of the greenies are into self suffientcy too, and some do exist on the right side of the line.

    This also means he is probably pro guns, and the prelevance of weapons seems to be a huge cultural problem for you folks over there. Gun crime has been very rare in my state in the last few years, but has picked up again recently, with a couple of bikie shoot outs in the last few weeks.

    If the economy goes pear shaped (I'm talking full on depression here), it's my guess he will be voted in in a heart beat.

    CRC

    P.S. Just my opinion and educated guesses, feel free to disagree.

    P.P.S. I'm often vocally against current US intervention overseas, but I'm not against it in theory - if their intervention was limited to supporting legitimate UN resolutions and not trying to further their own national interests (read: line thier pockets) I would support it, and regardless, the US has done some great things overseas, not least of which was being the driving force behind turning the tide in WWII. If there was no US overseas intervention (which you may know was the prevailing mindset and practice when WWII broke out, and while it was gradually eroded during the war, was only overcome by Pearl Harbour), would the rest of the world want the US to intervene if another WW occurred? The answer is "Yes! Yes and hell, yes! But... please don't make it worse..."
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    Yes, but he has also claimed he did write them and agreed with them. Which is it?


    The man has a had a consistent voting record, and generally keeps to his word in regards to what he believes, not changing views under pressure, unlike most politicians. The point I'm making is if he's saying that he disavows those letters, I have no reason to think otherwise. He' not Mitt Romney, he's not changing his tune every ten seconds just to collect votes.

    On top of that, in the video I posted, one person made a very good point. Dr. Paul wants to stop the War on drugs, a Government funded "war" that has put tons of blacks in jail for non violent drug crimes. The black people in this country make up 14% of drug users, while 65% of non-violent drug users in jail are black. In the words of the man in the video, that's beyond racism. That's the Government being discriminatory, and Dr. Paul wants to put a stop to the drug war and get these people home where they belong. That some more about his character than some papers from 20 years ago, at least in my opinion.
  • The many incredibly racist quotes in his newsletter are a deal breaker, period. The quotes are plentiful and awful, they occurred over time, they are in his newsletter, case closed. Defending it just makes the defender look racist or stupid.

    He also isn't even true to libertarianism. Anti-choice? I thought the whole goal of his political philosophy was personal choice. Except women. Except 52% of humanity, over their own bodies. Nice. Yeah he's all about the founders, they were way into white guy interests as well. PS, the gold standard is unworkable in the 21st century, just another sign that this guy is living in a pasttime paradise.

    This guy is like voting for Ralph Nader of Marion Barry. It just says I hate the establishment and haven't given it much thought beyond that so I am going to vote for an idiot who I think will lose so that I can continue to be smug that I did not support all these people I hate so irrationally I can not be bothered to think about how I might contribute constructively. Marion Barry would have never won if the idiots thought he had a chance.
  • GoodEnoughForMe said:
    He's racist, homophobic, economically clueless, and basically wants America to become a federal-less, isolationist country. Easily one of the worst candidates around.

    The internet has a fetish for him for reasons I can't fathom. Very few Americans actually care about him.


    what i read about it is that the armyboys like him the most.
  • laphamking said:

    Oh, and Fuzzy, what do you think should be added into the Constitution?


    It's not what can be added, it's what's wrong with it. Our constitution is so vague and old. It was set up so long ago that if you go by Paul's philosophy, we'd be living under a system set up for 5 million people and 13 colonies.

    The constitution makes no mention of how we handle bureaucracy. Things like the FBI, CIA, FDA, public education, and pretty much all federal spending is not specified in the constitution. Many laws that protect people in terms of civil rights are not in the constitution either.

    The constitution cannot protect this nation alone based on Ron Paul's standards. The poor would die due to no help from the federal system since state governments don't have the ability to pay for welfare programs alone. States are screwed right now in terms of budgets, many are in debt, and more will crash and burn under Paul's crazy narrow ideals. Our nation is not able sustain itself without federal spending. We're too big to be fucking around with a weak federal system with more power to states.

    Our constitution cannot be fixed or changed to make it a modern document unless the entire thing is whipped clean and restarted, but that won't start until we've seen years of depression.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week