Ron Paul - Views and consequences.
  • Fuzzy said:
    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.

    In theory if all the BS programs were cut then you would see a dramatic cut in your federal taxes giving you more money in your pocket. Check your state taxes on your next check. They are pretty low. That is probly how much your federal taxes would be if RP had his way. But your state taxes would go up if your state decided to implement those programs on a state level. How much would they go up? Reach in your pocket for that money you saved from the new lower federal taxes....thats about how much. So the only difference is that the programs im funding are decided by the people around me and not the ones that are voted on by people 3000 miles away in california.
    in reality nothing would get done because congress still gets a vote on almost all the important stuff.
    i will take the smug feeling over the yearly betrayed and lied to feeling any day.
  • westsw said:
    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.


    What's smug is showing some since of higher intellect, when you've shown nothing but childish attacks on people's intellect and character. What's racist is pulling out the race card every time someone says or does something you don't agree with. Can't blame people though, it's the ultimate argument "winner". Call someone racist, and you've won, amazing.

    With that said, you are right, he's not a true Libertarian. Like I said in my intial post, he has many ideas I don't agree with, his stance on abortion being one. His views on the gold standard being the other. I like the idea of having sound money so that the FED can't just get away with printing money we don't have, but it's not going to happen and it's not going to work. Besides, we live in a Global economy, the Gold standard is not going to be usable in that.

    @Fuzzy:

    Vague? What's hard to understand about having freedom of speech, press, the right to have a gun, etc? What's hard to understand about citizenship and the right to vote which was added in for minorities and women (they always had the rights, the government just chose not to recognize them).

    Amendments can be made to better define many of the aspects you mentioned, the only problem is, no matter how much you fix/rework/remake the constitution, the Government is still going to ignore it, it has for decades.
  • laphamking said:
    What's racist is pulling out the race card every time someone says or does something you don't agree with. Can't blame people though, it's the ultimate argument "winner". Call someone racist, and you've won, amazing.


    I call the man a racist on the basis of overwhelming evidence. Here are some of the quotes from his newsletter:

    "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

    "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

    "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

    "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

    "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

    These are not even veiled racism, they are the exact language you would see at a KKK rally. This is loopy, dyed-in-the-wool racism. What do you call it, my friend? It was in his newsletter, he never did anything about it at the time. Staff have called him very hands on. He took explicit ownership of some it in 1996, and has only recently fled it. If you defend it, or minimize it, it just says something about you. I am making an evidence based case here. I am not pulling any cards.
  • I'm not defending anything written in newsletters, I'm simply bringing up the fact that the man has disavowed them, and has in fact said he had nothing to do with most of the news letters, calling himself a very poor publisher for never actually taking the time to read them.

    The man has shown more consistency in his views, even with the many things he believes (religion, gold standard, abortion, etc) that I and many other don't agree with. He even consistently states that US intervention is what led to 9/11. The man is willing to say many things that piss off many people, because he clearly cares more about sticking to his views than making others happy.

    Again, I'm not defending anything written in those newsletters. They are what they are, it's clear. I'm just pointing out he has more consistency than the average politician, and if he did have anything to do with those letters, based on the consistency of his rhetoric, he'd be spending more time explaining what he meant and trying to justify what's written, than stating he disavows them.
  • This is not the kind of stuff you can just "disavow" and walk away from. It happened over time. He did not "disavow" all this stuff in 1996. It is not just one quote. It's a pattern of horribly racist stuff in his newletter. If it were written by some one else, cleary he did not really mind much, because he let them keep going, quote after quote. Staff has said he was quite aware of the newsletter. A guy with this many horribly racist quotes in his newsletter is a racist. You don't get to just say, "Well I do not agree with that now." and just walk away. That is dismissive and dishonest. I am glad you are not trying to defend the newsletter. I do not think you can just treat the newsletter like it is not a part of his record. It is his darn newsletter. I think you ignore this evidence at your peril, I cannot. I think it also calls into question his consistency. He has gone back and forth on some of these quotes, and that is a huge flip-flop. However, I don't care that much about consistency, compared to what the quotes indicate.
  • His racism isn't limited to the newsletters. He was also against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the first major bill that outlawed segregation and municipal discrimination at any level, including discrimination on gender as well as race.

    How can you not agree with that? This guy clearly has some issues. I would never want him to be president, or any representative for me in any context.
  • Aren't the newsletters from the 80's and 90's? Isn't it possible the guy has had a change of heart? Like when the Neo-Nazi discovers curb stomping black people isn't cool anymore in American History X? Or when Clint gives his Gran Torino to the awkward Vietnamese kid?
  • Also, just because someone may be a racist doesn't automatically make them horrible at their JOB.
  • Dr Flibble said:
    Aren't the newsletters from the 80's and 90's? Isn't it possible the guy has had a change of heart? Like when the Neo-Nazi discovers curb stomping black people isn't cool anymore in American History X? Or when Clint gives his Gran Torino to the awkward Vietnamese kid?


    It's possible. But he also took donations from the founder of Stormfront in recent years, so...

    Sunflower said:
    Also, just because someone may be a racist doesn't automatically make them horrible at their JOB.


    Perhaps in some situations, yeah. It probably isn't his biggest red flag (his economic policies are). But for someone tasked with looking after the well-being of every citizen, being racist might get in the way.
  • The guy has never even done a mea culpa for these horrible statements. He just disavowed them and acted like they were no big deal. Way to step up. You can be a racist accountant or programmer, you can't really be a very good racist doctor or public official. If you were black would you want him treating or representing you?
  • It doesn't necessarily hurt someone depending on their job performance.

    I can't stand stinky people, but they get the same service from me. Inside, I'm upset - but I still do my job. That's all I really meant. Some people would certainly have an issue with it. I do too. But it's not a simple "racist? then forget him!" I also don't care if the president is for or against abortion - because that will likely be a non-issue when faced with what -I- deem important and what I think the President will actually spend their time with.
  • It's like I said before, the guy is against the war on drugs. Let's ignore the fact that the drug war is a failure in general, and has cost us billions of tax payer dollars. Lets instead pay attention to a big fact, the war on drugs has been incredibly discriminatory towards black people. More non violent drug users that are black get put in jail for non violent drug use than anyone else. You can essentially call that federally enforced discrimination. Dr. Paul wants to get rid of the war on drugs and free the non violent offenders from jail. That's including those black people who have wrongly been put in jail. Clearly any racist views he has is not getting in the way of that.
  • westsw said:
    This is not the kind of stuff you can just "disavow" and walk away from. It happened over time. He did not "disavow" all this stuff in 1996. It is not just one quote. It's a pattern of horribly racist stuff in his newletter. If it were written by some one else, cleary he did not really mind much, because he let them keep going, quote after quote. Staff has said he was quite aware of the newsletter. A guy with this many horribly racist quotes in his newsletter is a racist. You don't get to just say, "Well I do not agree with that now." and just walk away. That is dismissive and dishonest. I am glad you are not trying to defend the newsletter. I do not think you can just treat the newsletter like it is not a part of his record. It is his darn newsletter. I think you ignore this evidence at your peril, I cannot. I think it also calls into question his consistency. He has gone back and forth on some of these quotes, and that is a huge flip-flop. However, I don't care that much about consistency, compared to what the quotes indicate.


    Well, I don't think consistentcy is necessarily a good thing, especially if you are wrong to begin with.

    I think we should encourage our elected officials to change their minds when in reciept of better or more complete information, without being labelled as 'flip-floppers'.

    However I don't know whether this bloke has actually changed or not - if he really has, perhaps he could demonstrate it by doing some good (now) for the segment of the population in question?

    CRC
  • It isn't just the candidates that are flawed it is the whole system that is flawed.
    I wish there was a real multi party system and not just democraps and republiasses, its the same shit with a different name.

    oh and i know Ru paul is not from the big 2 but when was the last time a non R&D party one , Lincoln?
  • Lincoln was the first republican if I remember my text books correctly. The party sure has gone downhill since then.
  • gilligan said:
    Lincoln was the first republican if I remember my text books correctly. The party sure has gone downhill since then.


    There was a political shift since then. Roughly speaking, in the 1860s, the Republicans = modern day Democrats, and the Democrats = modern day Republicans.
  • Anybody have any thoughts on Ron Paul's delegate strategy? In caucus states, after the vote, the delegates are chosen, AFTER most of the people who voted at the caucus have left. Whoever wants to stay late or organize to a secondary location are the people who vie to be the actual delegates. These delegates are SUPPOSED to reflect the outcome of the vote, but they are NOT MANDATED to. The Ron Paul campaign has made no secret that their hardcore 12% are staying late and trying like Hell to be delegates. The strategy being that a Ron Paul supporter is going to vote for Ron Paul, no matter what the outcome of the vote was, at all. This is legal, but undermines the idea of democracy. It is a grassroots version of the electoral college doomsday scenario. The electoral college has always been stupid and anti-democratic, the greatest fear has always been that members elected to it would not reflect the voter outcome. America has had a couple of elections where the popular vote did not reflect the outcome (and Dubyah was demonstrably the worst modern president), but we have never had a revolt in the electoral college. That outcome would invalidate the resulting government, and leave the people feeling betrayed. If the Ron Paul strategy succeeds, does the subversion of democratic intent outweigh the actual success?
  • this country always seems to edge towards the loudest minority so if he won that would be nothing new. to make that statement more clear, most of america isnt as left as gefm and not as far right as lapham. we are somewhere in the middle but it still seems like the far left and the far right are getting in quite often. i hate the electoral but it does have one good point. an overcrowded state that is looking to suck the government programs dry in a far left state cant completely take over an election. just playing devils advocate on the electoral i agree it should be eliminated, maybe it made sense back when it was started.

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