Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Interesting thread here P51....

Guessing you mean in a Republican primary election ? or in the general election?

By General Election we make the assumption that Ron Paul will be nominated by Republicans,......... not a sure thing.

Perhaps.... he will run as a 3rd Party independent candidate?

Now not everybody can vote in a Republican primary. Most places you need to be a registered Republican. But in some States, independent voters can vote in primary elections.

Remember, last election, all of those Republicans crossing over, voting in Democratic primaries for Hillary, against Obama, in places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. Perhaps Democrats can do the same for Ron Paul !

By the time I get to vote in a primary election here, in June, the whole thing will be sewn-up anyway, so I might as well vote for Ron Paul as a way to send a message.

A lot of guys who want to bash The Federal Reserve Board of Govenors seem for be otherwise fine with oversize, unwieldy goverment departments like Agriculture, Defense, Education et cetra. Ron Paul at least has the intelectual consistinsity to want to bash it all.
He is also a baby delivery doctor who has brought over 4,000 new lives into this world.

I have to to reply to Balbus here and the oft posted inqury: Will a vote for Ron Paul be a vote for WEALTHY, for the monied interest against the common man ? ? ? ? a very legitimate inqury.

I've not felt threatened by Wealth as much as threatened by Power.
Wealth seems sequestered away, behind thier gates and hedges, away at the riding stables, a golf club, at a mall. A self-satisfied, insular minority.
It is not Wealth that wants to pull my car off the road and inspect the contents of the ashtray, it is power.

Certainly Wealth and Power are very close cousins but there is a distinction. Power is the ability to control and manipulate our system from within; to command its resources for the benefit of itself. These levers of power may be controled by folks of modest upbringing.

Today, Power cloaks itself in the Teflon of P.C. causes, enabling it to fly beneath the radar of investigative journalism.

Wealth & Power seem to have abandoned thier habitats of the past, note the shuttered factories and overgrown rail corridors. Movies like Norma Raye and Erin Brokivitch having done thier part to portray capitalistic enterprise as exploitative, helping to send these operations overseas to locals lightly regulated.

Wealth & Power have migrated, to the halls of goverment, evidence the gerrymandered incumbent Congress, the public sector unions, the lap dog media.



atriot:

 

You assume far too much. Don't infer that because I recognize Paul's stances on economics are extremely dangerous that I, then, must support what we have now. You could just ask.

 

This is based on what exactly? Because his economic policies will return us to those of the industrial revolution, that's objective fact, not subjective hyperbole.

 

From what I've heard Ron Paul say, he would 'try' to bring about many changes, in obeyance with our Constitution, to reduce/eliminate much of the waste and ineffectiveness of government cronyism, to begin a return to becoming economically sound once again. In addition he would relinquish much of the powers that more properly belong to the States and the people back to the States and the people, which that alone would reduce the power of the wealthy and their ability to lobby the creation of laws and regulations which benefit them Nationally allowing State governments to produce the laws and regulations that take into consideration the unique circumstances they and their citizens have to contend with. The Federal government would then ONLY become involved when the activities of one State might be seen by another or others to have negative consequences imposed upon them, as it should be.

 

Bob

I did read it Bob and replied to it pointing out that what you are doing seems like evasion. Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian most of his policies are, at the very least coloured by that way of thinking if not strongly influenced.

 

Piney

You still don’t address any of the criticisms levelled at Ron Paul and right wing libertarianism can you do so?

 

Indie

Oh no, the same sad sound bites, slogans and hollow rhetoric that doesn’t address the criticisms levelled at right wing libertarianism.

- The US constitution is not a guarantee against the power and influence of wealth and was arguably actually set up to favour it, we’ve discussed this many times and you still have not addressed the criticisms of your views on the constitution.

- The ‘sound economy’ envisioned by right wing libertarians as explained by many numerous times would only seem to advantage wealth while disadvantaging the many - a charge you still have not addressed even though we have discussed it many times.

- As to bringing power back to the people you seem opposed to democracy and have proposed a system where wealth would have increased voting power so that it could block or counter the will of the majority.

- As to reducing the power of wealth – many here have presented detailed explanations of why right wing libertarianism would increase the power of wealth through such measures as – the removal of taxes and low taxation – deregulation – the reduction of social programmes and welfare – Free market/laissez faire based economics and Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc. And again you seem unable or unwilling to address these problems with your ideas.

 

Maaaan,,, I really really wish i could choose an answer to this poll but you see I have severe objections against being forced to choose a lesser evil from a group of fiends and none of the poll choices can really accurately describe the reasons for which I wont be wasting a vote on Paul,,, or any other bastard running for the office for that matter... I think I'll be busy masturbating that day or something equally more or greater in magnitiude to voting into the American Political machine. Might even use a flag to wipe off with when Im done...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz77XHvlYEs"]Vote for Me - Joe Walsh - YouTube

 

I'm not evading anything-you are. You can't just label the guy and say that all 'right wing libertarians' or Republicans think alike-they don't. You're evading the issue by not bringing up any specific policies that Ron Paul advocates-or maybe you don't know what he advocates and what he doesn't.

 

OK Bob lets go back to post 325, which you didn’t address at the time.

Right wing libertarian policies in this area would make many Americans lives at the lower and lower middle class levels more difficult while vastly increasing the wealth power and influence of a few.

I’ll explain –

Right wing libertarians want a non interventionists foreign policy and to cut military spending. Now that is also the idea of many on the left, but this right wing approach is based in their ‘small’ government low tax ideology. The left would reallocate any money saved and put it into things like education, training, welfare programmes and healthcare, but those things are disliked even hated by right wing libertarians (and be cut by them as well) and so instead any money clawed back would be given in tax cuts that would mainly favour wealth.

If military personnel was cut by half if would mean basically that some one million people would lose their job. Many of those would have dependents, partners, children and relatives, also many businesses and services would be affected by this lose of income.

In many European countries which have smaller military budgets there are welfare systems in place to help people with education, training, healthcare and pensions. In the more militarised US many in the lower levels of society have traditionally looked to the military for such cover (educational scholarships, vocational training, dental and medical care and for many a pension and a rise in social status). In a right wing libertarian US not only would that military avenue to benefits shrink but so would the few state benefits available.

Many Americans would be a lot worse off while wealth would gain in power and influence.

Is that what you want?

This is not hidden you only have to actually look at right wing libertarian ideas to see what it would actually mean, but I think many just see the headline ‘End Foreign Wars’ and go yeah - but they don’t read the small print.

 

Look, man, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you any more-all you know how to do is talk about what 'right wing libertarians' advocate-or what you think they advocate-not what Ron Paul personally advocates-like others have said that try to talk to you, this is just a circuitous route. This line of reasoning makes as much sense as labeling you a 'monarchist', and then proceeding to tell people how you think because apparently all monarchists think alike, right? Do you even know of one specific policy of Ron Paul's that you can debate with people about? Apparently not.

 

Balbie:

Poltics is not an exact science where we can gather and analyze facts relative to a question which allows us to determine a single solution to any relevant social problems.

What you call criticisms are not worth effort in responding to as you always seem to premise everything with one or more lies.

I believe I have explained previously that the U.S. is not 'A' Democracy but instead a Republic made up of 50 soveregn States who implement the democratc process n electing our 'representatives'. If you have been following politics in the U.S. for any time at all, you might recognze that the majority has little influence at all once the elections are over. And while the Constitution is not perfect, it is and should remain the Supreme law over our government until which time the people have given their consent to make any changes 'they' find necessary and give their consent.

Wealth will always be a source of power, and nothing you have presented would make that any less a factor.

 

Indie

LOL – so your solution is to follow a load of ideas that you cannot defend from criticism in any rational or reasonable way?

Basically you seem to be saying you’re going to follow an ideology that you haven't given much though to, because it fits in with your seemingly unquestioned prejudices.

You’ve tried this evasion trick before, more than once, and I’ll answer the same as the other times – please present your evidence - I mean in the past when asked to do so for the many crimes and misdemeanours you’ve accused me of you’ve never been able to do so.

And as I’ve told you repeatedly just as you can have a democratic republic you can also have an oligarchical republic were a few have control, they would both be republics. I would prefer a democratic republic whereas your ideas (as has been explained) are more likely to produce a republic under the control of wealth.

As said the problem is that right wing libertarians seem to feel the solution to this problem is to give even greater power and influence to wealth, rather than trying to curb that power.

But of course wealth will always be a source of power within a monetary based system and that is why its power and influence should be contained through regulation. I and others have proposed many things, campaign funding reforms, limitations on lobbyists, electoral reform, tax reforms, limits on speculation, wages reforms etc etc.

Thing is that many right wing libertarians seems to reject such solutions in favour of ‘free market’ and ‘Social Darwinist’ ideas that when looked at would only seem to increase wealth’s power, a criticism they seem unwilling or unable to address.

 

Oh Bob thank you – I love you too, just as much as your fellow evader Dave and I’ll repeat what I said to him – I don’t think you could have better highlighted the point I was trying to make in any stronger or clearer terms.

The point being the total inability of right wing libertarians to defend their ideas from criticism.

I mean here is Bob – if he could, I believe he would - what better way to humiliate me and my views than by destroying my criticisms and grinding them into the dirt in front of me before dancing a jig on top of the heap.

But he can’t – and I think he knows he can’t so he has to pretend righteous indignation and make ineffectual asides while hoping no one notices the evasion.

 

Bob

No actually you are wrong – I have never advocated monarchy in fact on a number of occasions I’ve argued against it and in favour of Republicanism. But you seem to give support to right wing libertarian views and a candidate that has right wing libertarian views.

*

But come on man you don’t have to make up something - I’ve presented many ideas here and I am happy for you (or anyone else) to criticise them in fact I’d look forward to the opportunity. You see, I like debate, I relish it, I think it a great opportunity to test ideas to see if they stand up to scrutiny, I don’t evade debate I embraces it, I don’t run away like so many right wing libertarians do, I run toward it.

However, I will defend my ideas from criticism if I think they’re correct, in fact if I couldn’t defend them, I’d change them.

That is why I find right wing libertarians so interesting – they promote ideas they seem totally unable to defend from criticism, but carry on holding them anyway.

As to labelling I’ve been called everything from a fascist to a Stalinist in my time, It didn’t make me cry and hide in a corner refusing to speak, I just pointed out the differences between my views and those of authoritarianism – if you believe that you don’t lean toward right wing libertarianism then rather than running away why not explain why you believe you are not but are still pushing a candidate with many right wing libertarian views?

*

 

Bob

But the following quote was you not me –

He being Ron Paul - you are putting forward what you believe to be a policy of Ron Paul

I gave my criticism of that policy – you are not disputing my analysis or my criticisms you are just refusing to address them.

Ron Paul does want to cut military spending (cutting investment and making redundant many people)
Ron Paul does believe in cutting taxes (that would mostly favour wealth)
Ron Paul does believe in cutting welfare (that would badly squeeze those in the lower and middle class brackets of society).

You don’t even disputing my conclusion as to where these policies would lead – “Many Americans would be a lot worse off while wealth would gain in power and influence”


You just refuse to defend - these ideas that you seem to support - from criticism.

 

Balbie:

Up until the Congressional elections we had a government totally controlled by the left wing Democrat party who while having entered public office by a Democratic process pretty much ignored the majority of the country, including many who voted for them in how they governed. The last electios should have made it clear that they had gone too far, yet enen now the Senate, still controlled by the Democrats refuse to recognize that the house went to the other party primarily because of the people wanted their voices heard.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who could be trusted to back up his words, which would make the Constitution once again relevant, and if you really understood HOW it is meant to work, would also give the States and the people power above that of the Federal government, which would require the people to give their consent to any additional powers of the Federal government, rather than just the consent of those who lobby and provide campaign contributions.
The tax system currently in place is primarily where the Federal government has taken power away from the States and the people. Read the Constitution and try and understand it as it existed prior to the 16th and 17th amendments. And you might also give some thought to the Federal reserve and the effect it has had which benefits the Federal government at cost to all the citizens, most especially the poorest.

 

Sorry Indie but your post is just a rant that doesn’t say anything we haven’t already heard and still does not addressing the many criticises levelled at you and those views.

Oh Ron Paul may or may not be trusted to enact his policies but that’s not the issue – the issue is whether these policies would make a bad situation worse or not. Many here have presented criticisms of right wing libertarian ideas that seem to show it is deeply flawed and probably dangerous – criticisms you amongst others has not been able to address let alone refute.

We’ve discussed your interpretation of the US constitution before, on a number of occasions, and your view seems to be about favouring wealth. I mean you claim to want to give ‘the people’ power but you have also proposed that wealth should get extra voting power so the votes of a few could block or veto the votes of the many.

As pointed out I and others have proposed many things to regulate and curtail the abuse of the lobby system and campaign funding, while many right wing libertarians seems to reject such solutions in favour of deregulation, ‘free market’ and ‘Social Darwinist’ ideas that when looked at would only seem to increase wealth’s power, a criticism they seem unwilling or unable to address.

*

Oh and I also notice you cannot produce any evidence of the supposed lying you have accused me of, you weren’t lying were you?

 

Yo Balbus:

There are plenty of legit honest critique of Libretaraniam. Just visit any page that offers a critique of an Ann Rand book ( No I havent read Rand ) But the critique there is crisp and honest.

The critique centers around heartlesness, selfishness, embracing the Self rather than The Community. That the Rand desciple is a youth-centric type who needs to recognize the fragility and dependence of old age and infirmity.

There are probably others missed here. Possibly found elsewhere right in this thread.

The honest person is unable to brush aside these critiques.

Sun Lion had a good spot about vigilence in protecting our environment.

While acknowledging the legitimacy of the critique, the Ron Paul voter would seek to vote against goverment corruption and self-dealing.
( I live in New Jersey)

America is going broke rapidly! Is that more alarming than say global warming or institutional racisism?

Our goverment seeks to undertake too much responsibility all the way from our twelve aircraft carrrier groups down to a promise that DYFS will insure that no troubled mother will ever murder a baby or that no drunk driver will ever commit vehicular manslaughter. ( as long as funding is adequate)

The Paul voter has a lack of faith in goverment, almost in the same way an athiest will snicker at opiate of the masses, the Paul voter belives that
All the Kings horses and all the kings men cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.



We are all like the Three Bears with the porridge: is it too hot or is it too cold?

Is there too much goverment or too little? How much is just right?


:juggle:

I don't honestly belive that The US should end food stamps or welfare, which expenses are really relatively small.

Aid to education is a good thing, within reason.

So for me, Ron Paul is radical, but its good to see that he is around and good to see that Republicans have allowed him in debates and primaries.

Certainly rich people are undertaxed, we should bring back the Alternative Minimum Tax and cap deductions for Real Estate Taxes. This blather about higher tax rates is just that if we continue to offer huge deductions. What greater evidence of wealth than a big home. Even people who do not file tax returns get hit by property tax.

 

Balbie, consider it a courtesy that I respond to 'your' rants.
The situation, if that's what you wish to call it, for Americans is that government more than anything else needs to be regulated and although you seem to have ignored my suggestion of reading the Constitution with the intent of learning how it is supposed to operate, and how the Fed, along with the 16th and 17th amendment have allowed the Federal government to become corrupted by wealth regardless of party affiliation, then it would take more than a few posts to explain it in detail to you, and seeing that you are so committed to your Leftist beliefs it's quite obvious that you are insanely impervious to accepting anything rational, and will only accept and apply a Leftist spin to everything. There is not enough money in existence to pay the debts our government has created, and continues to grow. The wealthiest do not have access to the money they are shown to be worth, and if they tried to cash in their worth would come tumbling down quickly. Government can tax the wealthy and the rest of us to a point, and what do they do after consuming all the cash money wealth of the wealthiest? Property would be next I suppose?

You ignore the fact that many/most probably would agree with you about reducing or eliminating the power of wealth in relation to government, but refuse to enter into any conversation that might lead to a solution that we could all agree on. Most every post you make directed at someone who doesn't agree with you is a condemnation of that person. You seem to divide people into two groups of equals, those who have and those who have not, and that all those who have not should be entitled, by government, to something from all those who have. I do not feel the same way as you, nor do I feel a government should impose by laws upon its citizens such feelings. What's next a government Department of Human Emotion, empowered to regulate emotional standards?