Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Ron Paul in 2012


CitizenX

Recommended Posts

I came across this article on Ron Paul's 15 most "extreme" positions. You may agree or disagree with these things individually, but try to imagine what America would look like were he able to implement all of them. Try to think of how all these things work together and what his "vision" for the country would look like with everything combined.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/extreme-ron-paul-president-2012

I don't agree with all of what Paul says, .. and here are the points I'll state my opinion on.

3. Enable State Extremism: Would let states set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and most other issues.

State Extremism? No, it's not extreme to put power back into the individual states hands, as it was before. One single national policy does not seem fit all the states needs. Let the states make the choice.

5. Rescind the Bin Laden Raid: Instead of authorizing the Navy Seals to take him out, President Paul would have sought Pakistan's cooperation to arrest him.

As the President should. If another country came into the USA to take out an enemy of theirs, the USA would be all up in a tizzy about it. They would consider it an act of war, which it is.

12. Not Do Anything, but Still...: Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a "massive violation of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of a free society."

If people were treated fair across the board in every aspect, there would be no need for the Civil Rights Act. But biases and prejudices get in the way of true equality.

14. First, Do Harm: Wants to end birthright citizenship. Believes that emergency rooms should have the right to turn away illegal immigrants.

In a country that has a huge 'illegal's issue, Paul's vision of fast tracking them to citizenship would not make them illegal. Hospitals are private for the most part from what I understand and can refuse anyone for any reason. Even if you are a citizen but you have no health insurance, I have heard you can get denied medical care. I could be wrong.

Those are the ones that stand out the most. Again not all his points I agree with .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 661
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes the article is written in a biased way because it does not fully explain Ron Pauls position on a number of those controversial points. Sometimes a bill is wrapped in with other issues that make it untenable for the congressman to vote for, in full. This is often done to include items that are agenda driven, by wrapping them up with other items that are seen as socially valuable, to further a particular agenda. It takes courage then to vote against it.

Actually on many of those points I find myself in complete agreement with Ron Paul, but not all of them. There should be some kind of safety net for health care and to help those in abject poverty. There should be some government oversight of powerful corporate/ big money groups. That should be the primary role of federal government.

But which of us could be in complete agreement with any political candidate? Only the stupidest, most partisan shills. That is why democracy must have checks and balances, so that one person cannot impose their personal will on a nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem with Ron Paul is that his good ideas are impossible to bring about from a repub president's position. And I doubt he's serious about them anyway. He certainly can't seriously believe that he can end all wars and bring all the troops home. I think it's just one of his scams to attract some people. But his ending government involvement in healthcare could certainly happen and he would be fully supported by his republican party. Thereby ending any hope of Americans ever having a chance of having what the rest of the first world takes for granted.

That one issue alone should be poison to 99% of the people but for some strange reason it's not? It's a good thing that Ron Paul is never going to be president. Maybe the people who support him feel safe because they subconsciously know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem with Ron Paul is that his good ideas are impossible to bring about from a repub president's position. And I doubt he's serious about them anyway. He certainly can't seriously believe that he can end all wars and bring all the troops home. I think it's just one of his scams to attract some people. But his ending government involvement in healthcare could certainly happen and he would be fully supported by his republican party. Thereby ending any hope of Americans ever having a chance of having what the rest of the first world takes for granted.

That one issue alone should be poison to 99% of the people but for some strange reason it's not? It's a good thing that Ron Paul is never going to be president. Maybe the people who support him feel safe because they subconsciously know that.

Ending the wars and bringing the troops home would be one of the things Ron Paul could do without congressional approval. He can sign executive orders to bring the troops home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

There should be some kind of safety net for health care and to help those in abject poverty.

...A position with which I think Representative Paul would fully agree. This "safety net" includes family, friends, private charities and philanthropists.
There should be some government oversight of powerful corporate/ big money groups. That should be the primary role of federal government.

<snip>

...Why does that have to be done by government? If there's a market for such oversight, as there surely must be because it's so important, it should happen without government. I hope you're not going to reply that non-government oversight can be captured by the very interests that are the subjects of the oversight -- a true statement, but the very definition of government (at least here in the US)! :) <grin>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

But his ending government involvement in healthcare could certainly happen and he would be fully supported by his republican party. Thereby ending any hope of Americans ever having a chance of having what the rest of the first world takes for granted.

...You gloss over the considerable advantages of the US system, such as readily available, high-quality health care for those that are well connected to the system (most of us). Of course there are serious disadvantages but, for many of us, they are outweighed by our estimation of the advantages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does that have to be done by government? If there's a market for such oversight, as there surely must be because it's so important, it should happen without government.

because government is elected by the people and has the legal authority to do so. And it exists already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mother Jones link is exceptional in that it gives us a good look at Ron Paul in a nutshell.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/extreme-ron-paul-president-2012

It presents the issues in an easy to critique and truthful way which makes it easier to understand the whole impact of what he is doing, all on one page. On looking over them together in that way what becomes most obvious is that Ron Paul is appealing to the worst in people. He's camoflaging his racism and hatefilled agenda by presenting alternatives in a way that appeals to his followers' selfishness and exclusionist biases. The trouble is for his supporters though, is it's looking at the whole package which makes it unmistakably an agenda of hate and greed. It has tea partiers written all over it.

It's scary to think that so many Americans are ready to accept this kind of hatefilled agenda of dishonesty. And it's not surprising that some of his more clever followers here on this forum are embarrassed by his agenda in this totality so obviously, that they are having to make excuses and say that it's not presented accurately by MJ.

Ron Paul's future success in the campaign will be directly related to the the success of the worst in American society. It probably can't peak at any more than 25% but even this comes dangerously close to enabling a regime in America that is very similar to what enabled the Nazis prior to WW2. Glaring proof that a majority is not necessary.

Ron Paul's agenda is the tea party's agenda, or what is left of the tea party and that is, the dregs that are tolerant of such ugliness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mother Jones link is exceptional in that it gives us a good look at Ron Paul in a nutshell.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/extreme-ron-paul-president-2012

It presents the issues in an easy to critique and truthful way which makes it easier to understand the whole impact of what he is doing, all on one page. On looking over them together in that way what becomes most obvious is that Ron Paul is appealing to the worst in people. He's camoflaging his racism and hatefilled agenda by presenting alternatives in a way that appeals to his followers' selfishness and exclusionist biases. The trouble is for his supporters though, is it's looking at the whole package which makes it unmistakably an agenda of hate and greed. It has tea partiers written all over it.

It's scary to think that so many Americans are ready to accept this kind of hatefilled agenda of dishonesty. And it's not surprising that some of his more clever followers here on this forum are embarrassed by his agenda in this totality so obviously, that they are having to make excuses and say that it's not presented accurately by MJ.

Ron Paul's future success in the campaign will be directly related to the the success of the worst in American society. It probably can't peak at any more than 25% but even this comes dangerously close to enabling a regime in America that is very similar to what enabled the Nazis prior to WW2. Glaring proof that a majority is not necessary.

Ron Paul's agenda is the tea party's agenda, or what is left of the tea party and that is, the dregs that are tolerant of such ugliness.

Nothing but bunk.

Paul has address those newsletters many times over the past years and has said the same thing each time. I don't think anyone is going to catch him in a slip up.

As for the Tea Party, .. like part of the Occupy movement, grass roots initiated, quickly hijacked by the establishment to discredit it and marginalize it. To change it into something else so people can hate it. It worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so to start at the beginning:

1. Eviscerate Entitlements: Believes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional, and has compared the failure of federal courts to strike them down to the courts' failure to abolish slavery in the 19th century.

Ron Paul very often depends on quoting the constitution in order to appeal to simple minded people. Americans have been well indoctrinated into believing the dogma that the constitution is sacred. And so they support Ron Paul on that basis rather than understanding that his real agenda is being camoflaged by his constitution arguments. The 'constitution' can be used for any number of dishonest purposes and only takes a dishonest politician like Ron Paul who will stoop to the lowest levels for political gain. As he offers the lowest of society financial security or financial gain.

And the real agenda which appeals to the lowest is that they can see that to throw people to the wolves who benefit and depend on medicare or social security will mean more money in their pockets. Those supporters never for an instant consider the real disasterous impact of what Ron Paul proposes. Not for a minute, but instead will present weak arguments to say that charity or friends will make up the shortfall. Knowing in their hearts that it wouldn't and never has. Hence the reason for government run social programs that are absolutely necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul very often depends on quoting the constitution in order to appeal to simple minded people. Americans have been well indoctrinated into believing the dogma that the constitution is sacred.

I'm not fan of Ron Paul, but the constitution is the law of the land. All government policy and laws have to pass constitutional muster. I realize that can be a pain in the butt sometimes, especially for people hell bent on changing the nature of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Lay Off Half His Cabinet: Wants to abolish half of all federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor.

Nobody wants that! But it appeals to shallow tea partiers because they are shallow people. Ron Paul takes hot button issues from the repub agenda and takes them to the extreme in order to appeal to the extremists. None of them are the least bit interested in the implications of abolishing all those necessary government departments. They just take suggestions of saving money and eliminating waste to the extreme and support abolishing the lot. Ron Paul knows that there are enough simpleminded people out there that he can get away with such total nonsense. He wouldn't have 10 years ago but he's seeing surprising success now as the bad economic times brings out the selfishness and greed in the dregs of society. Those are the sort of people that Ron Paul's ilk depend on.

This one directly relates to his racist tendencies as it is obvious to him that to eliminate those branches of government will primarily affect the poorest in American society. And the poorest being blacks and Hispanics to a large degree. It's far right extremism on a par with Nazism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not fan of Ron Paul, but the constitution is the law of the land. All government policy and laws have to pass constitutional muster. I realize that can be a pain in the butt sometimes, especially for people hell bent on changing the nature of the country.

Ron Paul can make the constitution mean whatever serves his purpose. Each of his hatefilled agenda items could be successfully argued against while maintaining faithfulness to the constitution. It's nothing more than a smokescreen to hide his dishonesty. Don't try to pass off your political dogma for honest debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul can make the constitution mean whatever serves his purpose. Each of his hatefilled agenda items could be successfully argued against while maintaining faithfulness to the constitution. It's nothing more than a smokescreen to hide his dishonesty. Don't try to pass off your political dogma for honest debate.

Like I said, I couldn't care less about Ron Paul. But the following the law isn't dogma. Only to radicals it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I couldn't care less about Ron Paul. But the following the law isn't dogma. Only to radicals it is.

If you aren't a Ron Paul supporter then you've been listening to his supporters too much. Cheap tactics such as saying the law must be followed are easy to dredge up. (apply the baloney detector here) They aren't specific about which law and they don't quote their constitution. Or if they quote their constitution they aren't the least bit interested in how they can remain faithful to their constitution and not follow Ron Paul's dogma.

The purpose is very transparent, suggest that the law must be obeyed in order to further Ron Paul's extremist hate agenda. It doesn't wash with people over a grade 4 elemnentary school level. Or should I say, it 'shouldn't' wash!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you aren't a Ron Paul supporter then you've been listening to his supporters too much. Cheap tactics such as saying the law must be followed are easy to dredge up. (apply the baloney detector here) They aren't specific about which law and they don't quote their constitution. Or if they quote their constitution they aren't the least bit interested in how they can remain faithful to their constitution and not follow Ron Paul's dogma.

The purpose is very transparent, suggest that the law must be obeyed in order to further Ron Paul's extremist hate agenda. It doesn't wash with people over a grade 4 elemnentary school level. Or should I say, it 'shouldn't' wash!

Complete nonsense. I wouldn't want the American government straying from the constitution any more than I'd want the Canadian government straying from our ocnstitution. It has nothing to do with ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gost, I'll be taking each in it's order as presented by MJ. Racism will be addressed in turn. Each item taken together makes the case against Ron Paul.

Good luck. People have been trying to bring that up for over 10 years now with Paul. Each time getting the same result, no matter how many times they grill him on it. His consistency will prove to be your biggest challenge for the points you want to make.

If Bill Ayers did not pose much of a problem for Obama, this won't pose much of a problem for Paul, if it is in fact a real problem to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete nonsense. I wouldn't want the American government straying from the constitution any more than I'd want the Canadian government straying from our ocnstitution. It has nothing to do with ideology.

That's also about as far as the stupid baggers will take the debate too. Empty rhetoric coming from empty bottles that always make the loudest noise.

I challenge you or any of them to stand their ground and argue their constitution as it pertains to Ron Paul's dishonesty. Any of Ron Paul's nonsense can be debated while remaining true to their constitution. It's all nothing but a smokescreen that appeals to haters with tea bags hanging off their hats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul is the only candidate who would aggressively pursue attempts to reduce the size and power of the federal government. And that's to the good. Any of his more "extreme" ideas would never get through congress anyway, so one hardly has to fear any extreme views he may have. That's inherent to the American political system: the president's power is limited. The main thing that would worry me about him, actually, is that he is really old.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck. People have been trying to bring that up for over 10 years now with Paul. Each time getting the same result, no matter how many times they grill him on it. His consistency will prove to be your biggest challenge for the points you want to make.

If Bill Ayers did not pose much of a problem for Obama, this won't pose much of a problem for Paul, if it is in fact a real problem to begin with.

As I said, it works with about 20% - 25% of the people and it'll always work in times when economic hardship starts to touch people. It's the way Hitler worked it in pre-war Germany and it wouldn't have stood a chance of success in economic good times. This is a real parallel to draw which can be defended!

So the question becomes, are times bad enough to give Ron Paul success? If times get worse then his success will rise because they are directly proportional. And vice versa of course.

I really doubt that times are bad enough for Ron Paul and his ilk. But there's no doubt that the current situation is bringing the rats out of the sewers. David Duke is experiencing a surge in popularity too right now. When the political vermin such as those two come above ground there will usually be lots of people who are just itching for an excuse to voice their hatred for everyone and everything that differs from them in any way. When MJ brings it all together on Ron Paul then it concentrates the stench enough for even some of the lamest idiots to smell. Each point meshes perfectly with the previous and the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, it works with about 20% - 25% of the people and it'll always work in times when economic hardship starts to touch people. It's the way Hitler worked it in pre-war Germany and it wouldn't have stood a chance of success in economic good times. This is a real parallel to draw which can be defended!

So the question becomes, are times bad enough to give Ron Paul success? If times get worse then his success will rise because they are directly proportional. And vice versa of course.

I really doubt that times are bad enough for Ron Paul and his ilk. But there's no doubt that the current situation is bringing the rats out of the sewers. David Duke is experiencing a surge in popularity too right now. When the political vermin such as those two come above ground there will usually be lots of people who are just itching for an excuse to voice their hatred for everyone and everything that differs from them in any way. When MJ brings it all together on Ron Paul then it concentrates the stench enough for even some of the lamest idiots to smell. Each point meshes perfectly with the previous and the next.

Sorry dude, but you're going to lose everybody on ridiculous Hitler references. That's always a losing argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul is the only candidate who would aggressively pursue attempts to reduce the size and power of the federal government. And that's to the good. Any of his more "extreme" ideas would never get through congress anyway, so one hardly has to fear any extreme views he may have. That's inherent to the American political system: the president's power is limited. The main thing that would worry me about him, actually, is that he is really old.

You see folks, this is indicative of the kind of apologist rhetoric that Ron Paul is going to need to depend on. Just don't take Ron Paul seriously and nothing bad or extremist will happen. Here again is an accurate parallel to the way Hitler was able to lie to the people so effectively. Nobody took his extremist views seriously. Those good people thought that he would just put those Jews in their places. They saw the obvious answer to their economic woes and knew that the Nazi party would never follow through with it's promises. Just like Bonam says, don't worry because Ron Paul could never get away with any of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see folks, this is indicative of the kind of apologist rhetoric that Ron Paul is going to need to depend on. Just don't take Ron Paul seriously and nothing bad or extremist will happen. Here again is an accurate parallel to the way Hitler was able to lie to the people so effectively. Nobody took his extremist views seriously. Those good people thought that he would just put those Jews in their places. They saw the obvious answer to their economic woes and knew that the Nazi party would never follow through with it's promises. Just like Bonam says, don't worry because Ron Paul could never get away with any of it!

Comparing Paul to Hitler is both inappropriate and laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...