The Ron Paul appreciation thread!

[JeffTD]

You don't want to cut into social programs, and you think we need to spend 20 years slowly integrating all our troops back into the domestic economy. But, you want to greatly reduce deficit spending...so, what in the world do you suggest we do to get government spending under control? I hope you don't answer by saying that we just need to raise taxes on the rich.

[shortened for space]

Yup, taxes. A progressive tax rate is totally justifiable and completely compatible with capitalism, especially during a recession. That's a completely different argument, though.

The Fed cooking books and giving out false inflation percentages is more indicative of a problem with the Fed than a problem with fiat money. Yes, eliminating fiat money would eliminate inflation, but it would introduce a whole slew of other problems; unnecessary rigidity in the money supply (changes in gold supply aren't at all likely to reflect changes in the actual economy and we're back to unnecessary booms/busts) and fixes exchange rates (like you said earlier in the thread - look at the Euro) among other things. Me saying that inflation is easily predictable and low isn't an endorsement of the Federal Reserve or of central banking in general, it's just not an endorsement of the gold standard.

 

[JeffTD]

1. Why do you keep on saying that his personal beliefs will transfer into a constitutional MANDATE?
That's what every other politician thinks they're entitled to do.
And that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to change. He wants to give freedom back to the people.

2. Why would you -or anyone else- insist and keep on asking of a leader on what their position is on this and on that particular matter of a personal nature? You're supposed to live under a democracy, not under a religious-led kingship where one person gets to tell you what do with your own life.
That kind of over-the-top authoritativeness -that is violent in nature- is what I (and I'm sure lots of others) find so absolutely obnoxious and repulsive about religion.

3. Society is supposed to be moving away from that attitude, not back towards it. The one-size-fits-all, do-as-I-want-you-to mentality is a trait most definitely diametrically opposed to what a democracy is supposed to be.

4. And the argument about how he's going to leave every man for himself is obviously not valid. If anything he's the only one not trying to run dry the retirement funds of senior citizens who can no longer generate their own income, whilst at the same time screwing them over by butchering the value of their hard earned savings. I mean the man is a physician, and apparently an excellent one at that, from the testimonials of his patients.

5. Who do you think knows best about health care, a bureaucrat or a physician?

6. To leave a margin of sovereignty to States to vote and decide on their laws, that straightens the concept of a democracy. And if you as a citizen happen to be too much inconvenienced by a particular decree you can always appeal to judicial proceedings, or move elsewhere. Again by logic you cannot achieve a solution that can leave everyone satisfied, but on a practical level it does look like the best compromise. It is not a perfect solution, but certainly seems like the most practical.

Either there is a HUGE language barrier or you're just completely missing the point.

1. The President still has the task of signing bills passed by Congress into law - if they decide something ridiculous like same-sex marriage being outlawed or abortion being made illegal, I want a guy who will, no questions asked, veto it. I'm really not sure Ron Paul would be that guy.

2. Because your personal beliefs and values influence your policy decisions. We are supposed to live in a republic (not democracy), but that comes with the risk of tyranny of the majority if we're not careful and stringent about not infringing the rights of minority groups.

I'm with you on the obnoxious and repulsive part, I just don't think you understand our system well enough or don't realize how bat-shit-backwards this country is when it comes to religion.

3. It's supposed to be, but America isn't.

4. I never said anything like that? I don't see what you're getting at here.

5. A physician, but we can't put all doctors in charge of healthcare policies - that'd create a huge moral hazard.

6. Again, the notion that civil rights and liberties should be decided on a state-by-state basis is absolute horseshit and is the reason we have things like the Bill of Rights. We can't make everyone satisfied, but the least we can do is have a fair playing field for all involved. That's the entire reason the 14th Amendment was enacted.

 

[iekobrid]

http://www.musicradar.com/news/live/interview-megadeths-dave-mustaine-talks-guitar-politics-and-todays-music-529703


"I'm just hoping that whatever is in the White House next year is a Republican. I can't bear to watch what's happened to our great country. Everybody's got their head in the sand. Everybody in the industry is like, 'Oh, Obama's doing such a great job...' I don't think so. Not from what I see.

Looking at the Republican candidates, I've got to tell you, I was floored the other day to see that Mitt Romney's five boys have a $100 million trust fund. Where does a guy make that much money? So there's some questions there. And watching Newt Gingrich, I was pretty excited for a while, but now he's just gone back to being that person that everybody said he was -– that angry little man. I still like him, but I don't think I'd vote for him.

Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide -– 98 percent of it's inert gases, but it's the two percent that's left that will kill you. What that means is that he'll make total sense for a while, and then he'll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we're like the Taliban… I'm sorry, Congressman Paul, but I'm nothing like the Taliban.

Earlier in the election, I was completely oblivious as to who Rick Santorum was, but when the dude went home to be with his daughter when she was sick, that was very commendable. Also, just watching how he hasn't gotten into doing these horrible, horrible attack ads like Mitt Romney's done against Newt Gingrich, and then the volume at which Newt has gone back at Romney… You know, I think Santorum has some presidential qualities, and I'm hoping that if it does come down to it, we'll see a Republican in the White House... and that it's Rick Santorum."

 

[AD Chaos]

No there's no 'language barrier' as far as I can tell- I hope you aren't using that to deflect on the arguments.

1. The President still has the task of signing bills passed by Congress into law - if they decide something ridiculous like same-sex marriage being outlawed or abortion being made illegal, I want a guy who will, no questions asked, veto it. I'm really not sure Ron Paul would be that guy.

He has regularly voted against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes, and has the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002.

In any case if you're concerned on any specific issues and the positions of Ron Paul, you can learn about them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

I understand that you may disagree with some of his positions, but the important thing is that you can clearly know beforehand what those positions on the different matters are, and much more importantly so that he's actually going to honor his word and continue to be consistent on his principles, as he always has been.

Can you say that about any of the other 4 candidates?
It would be stupìd to even post a list of proposals from other candidates, as you well know they make a lot of empty an even incoherent promises just to get elected.

his whole spiel about the US being a Christian nation, founded by Christians upon Christian principles is pure horseshit.

You make it sound like he's some sort of religious fundamentalist.
By this point you should know he's clearly not.

The only true mishap that I've heard and seen Paul commit is his denying of evolution. That doesn't seem politically relevant anyway (as I doubt he can ''repeal'' evolution) and only strikes me as further evidence that not even a very intelligent person such as he can successfully defend the many entanglements and contradictions of christianity.

Having said that, when he holds in high regard and actually applies values such as honesty, caring and compassion (promoted yet not practiced by the majority involved in religious affiliations) to both his private and public life, I don't see a problem with that.
Quite the contrary, I find it to be positive and reassuring.

Our system doesn't work - that's the problem.

the more I think about it, the less likely I would be to vote for Paul if he ran against Obama.

Seems to me like you go too far in trying to nitpick on a candidate that by almost every measure is far superior to any of the others.

As for your concerns on his policies (as valid as they can rightfully be) sounds as if you were too afraid to even allow someone to try and correct the course, and instead be willing to allow the status-quot to keep on profiting from eroding your democracy, your civil liberties, your constitutional rights, your economy, your moral position upon the world and your national security, to name a few.

 

[JeffTD]

I said there's a language barrier because you consistently either misinterpret what I say, completely misunderstand my points, or assert/bring up completely irrelevant and unrelated arguments.

Your first response about his voting record had nothing to do with my statement that you quoted. I know his policies - you don't need to link me to them.

I never said he was a Christian fundamentalist, but if he's going to paint the founding fathers with that kind of BS then I don't really want much to do with him. The evolution thing is ridiculous, too - anyone who denies biological evolution is being willfully ignorant at this point. As far as him holding honesty, caring, and compassion as high values, I find that highly debatable. I find his stance on social programs to be completely uncaring and un-compassionate, just like I find homophobic values and pro-life stances to be. If you find it "positive and reassuring," then that's great, but you're not going to convince me otherwise.

Not voting for Paul doesn't automatically make me a supporter of the status quo, it just means his idea of change to it is not one I subscribe to or agree with.

Saying Ron Paul is a superior candidate is a normative statement at best and is completely unprovable.

And what the hell are you on about saying that my "moral position upon the world" is being eroded? That makes literally zero sense.

 

[K Odell]

All I am gonna say Jeff is if you had to deal with the people using your tax money to live off the system for no reason every day you would have an issue with said social programs also.

I don't think we need to do away with these social programs, but I think we need strict strict laws on who gets it. Call it cold hearted, but that woman with 3 vehicles getting her nails done every two weeks with a fulltime job that gets food stamps doesn't mind spending your money. If you give people a way to be lazy then they will be lazy period.

 

[JeffTD]

You just said it yourself, Kyle - we need reforms on it, but it's still a necessary function of government. It's not like I don't see the result of bad tax dollar allocation - the college I go to is down the road from a prison that gates way, way more funding than my school does and they aren't living much worse than I am, all things considered. Again, me not being a Paul supporter is not an endorsement of our current state of affairs.

 

[sadistik necrofiend]

Anyone else notice how much this guy gets ignored in the mainstream media and only seems to get mentioned or covered when the media deems absolutely necessary? Keep in mind I don't really watch much news other than the internet, but still it seems that all other candidates and Obama are more regularly featured.

Not to sound conspiracy-ish, but it does appear that his opposition to the fed views are very unfavorable and perhaps this is why it appears his views aren't so covered in the media. It is public fact that the media is corporately controlled and it makes perfect sense how censored he is. Hell, just look at this so called racist
campaign against him. Talk about obvious propaganda!.

 

[AD Chaos]

I linked you to his political positions on issues such as the ones you were talking about. Not just a list of his voting record.

I don't keep track of his videos but he has clearly stated in an interview that the founding fathers did not have any particular religion in mind when they wrote the Constitution. And yet you're saying he has claimed such a thing. At no point have I heard him saying anything about forcing religion into people, his personal views into mandates, or transform the US into a Lutheran state or something, so why you're talking about 'a christian nation' is beyond me. Please read the link I posted for you, if you will:

The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."

If you don't agree with Paul's candidacy for whatever reason (which of course you're entitled to), you could always cast a blank vote. Or not vote at all, I guess. But you're saying you'll vote for Obama.
If you think voting for Obama or any of the other 3 current candidates is not supporting the status quo, then I guess we've reached a dead point.

And I was talking obviously about the moral position of America as a country. Not yours as an individual.

 

[JeffTD]

You're wrong on his view of the founding fathers. I never said anything about him forcing us to be a Christian nation.

http://www.dailypaul.com/143364/the...ly-christian-yet-religiously-tolerant-america

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have not once in this thread stated I would be voting for Obama or any of the other potential Republican nominees, only that I wouldn't be voting for Paul.

 

[AD Chaos]

Ok, I had not read that before. Looks weird as I've seen him talking the points I was mentioning.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I have not once in this thread stated I would be voting for Obama or any of the other potential Republican nominees, only that I wouldn't be voting for Paul.

As far as voting for Obama in November, it'd be hard to say that I'm not going to vote for him.

 

[Aaron Smith]

Anyone else notice how much this guy gets ignored in the mainstream media and only seems to get mentioned or covered when the media deems absolutely necessary? Keep in mind I don't really watch much news other than the internet, but still it seems that all other candidates and Obama are more regularly featured.

Not to sound conspiracy-ish, but it does appear that his opposition to the fed views are very unfavorable and perhaps this is why it appears his views aren't so covered in the media. It is public fact that the media is corporately controlled and it makes perfect sense how censored he is. Hell, just look at this so called racist campaign against him. Talk about obvious propaganda!.

Dude, straight up. The mainstream media doesn't want to do anything that would help legitimize the Paul campaign or cause the uninformed populace to start to believe that he's actually popular and/or electable. From what the Paul campaign has been saying, they truly believe that they are actually winning in the delegate count from all the caucuses so far (which is excellent news), but these vanity straw-polls go a long ways towards allowing the mainstream media to shape people's opinions on the race, and it's unfortunate that they just continue to bury Ron Paul so much. It's actually incredibly despicable.

Here's a good example, from just a couple days ago:

What kind of poll shows the loser at the top and the winner at the bottom!? Obviously, the answer is only in a poll that Ron Paul wins... I'm not the conspiracy type either, but when you start paying attention to this kind of thing, it's absolutely infuriating how often Ron gets slighted by the mainstream media. It's a daily occurrence...

Also, the stuff going on in Maine right now is totally insane. Check these two links out for a basic rundown:

http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-maine-caucuses-gop-takeover-2012-2

So not only does the Paul campaign get continuous unfair treatment in the media, but they also are dealing with the GOP party unfairly skewing straw poll numbers away from his favor. I've always liked to think that we have legitimate elections in the US, but I've come to see that in order to believe that, requires putting too much faith in the wicked human heart... When there is so much on the line in an election, an honest, outsider type of dude like Ron Paul faces an incredibly tilted playing field. It just goes to show you how uninterested the establishment really is in the wishes of the people...all they want is to keep and consolidate their power.

The one redeeming part of all this however, is that regardless of what kind of lies and games the establishment has to play in order to hide Ron's success, the truth of the matter is that his ideas are catching on (Ron owns the under-30 crowd), and his message won't die with his campaign. We seem to be in a transition phase right now, where it's the 40+ crowd who really still falls in line with the status-quo and helps to perpetuate it, but as long as the internet and the free-flow of knowledge remains available, the future technologically-savvy generations are growing up without being so easily blinded by the media. Sure, there are dudes like Jeff who will still vote for Obama and big government, but statistics show that he's in a minority for people his age.

Also, I want to say that I really do think that our national debt is a significant issue that can't simply be kicked on down the road for another decade...our economy gets crushed when interest rates go back up (still being held at zero after more than three years, largely by the Fed's actions, which is unprecedented in our history), and the only way the Fed can keep our interest rates at zero when the rest of the world starts to question our debt-worthiness, is to straight up monetize our debt in massive quantities...and as I mentioned earlier in the thread, central bank monetization of a nation's debt is the end-game of a fiat currency. I believe we're closer to that point than most people believe or realize, and that's why I'm so motivated to support the Paul campaign...because our debt and economic problems are urgent. It's not just a philosophical issue for me, but a practical issue that requires action on an ever-shortening timeline.

Another four-year Obama term will see the gold price over $5,000...which is great for me personally, but terrible for the future of the country. If anyone disagrees with me on this, I will bet you an ounce of gold that I'm right.

 

[Aaron Smith]

Also, more evidence that the Fed is working very hard to help keep our whole financial system tied together:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-charting-federal-reserves-assets-1915-2012

 

[Aaron Smith]

Also Jeff, I still don't know how you can argue so wholeheartedly in favor of fiat money. I love this quote:

Typically, people take our monetary unit for granted. While other standard such as year, pound, inch, etc. are well defined, the "dollar" is an unspecified unit of measure. As recently as 75 years ago, a dollar was defined as 1/20.67th of an ounce of gold and a Federal Reserve Note stated on its face: Pay to the bearer on demand. These words no longer appear. A $20 bill, therefore, is an unspecified obligation of the U.S. Treasury that says in effect:

The U.S. Treasury owes 20 "somethings" to no one in particular in no particular timeframe!

Of course, the general civilized world is in this same boat, but that is no evidence or argument whatsoever in favor of the long-term viability of fiat money.

 

[Aaron Smith]

Since there is little chance of an RP nomination I wonder if he could play politics enough to take a VP bid in a campaign. It would entail a level of party line towing that would alienate some of his supporters but it would also put him in a much better position to change things. There would obviously be a huge value to the Republican campaign if they were able to rally the libertarian and tea party folks who dislike Romney.
So would he do it? Is compromising his position in furtherance of his position a worthwhile venture to him/his followers?

I saw this post go by a while ago and I just realized that no one has addressed it yet...

The Republican party desperately needs Ron's supporters in order to defeat Obama. There is no chance whatsoever that the Republican candidate can win the Presidency if Ron ends up running as an independent or as a third party candidate, because not many of his supporters (myself included) will actually peel off and vote for one of the establishment candidates. I don't know if the party has fully appreciated this reality just yet, but if the Paul campaign is right about winning and/or being reasonably competitive in winning delegates, the best case scenario is that they have the delegates to win the nomination. The worst case is that they have a substantial enough amount of delegates to prevent any of the other candidates from reaching the 1,144 needed to win the nomination outright, and that means the party would have to start thinking in terms of actually respecting Ron Paul, enough so that they can bring his supporters into the fold. As you suggested, a vice-president slot would bring Ron's supporters on board, but there is no way that Ron would accept a VP position unless the party was willing to substantially bend in his direction. But, if the party was truly willing to commit to to cutting $500 billion from the budget in the first year in office (Ron has committed to cutting $1 trillion in the first year), commit to a full audit of the Federal Reserve, legalizing gold and silver as money (that is, removing capital gains taxes from them), commit to getting out of Afghanistan and closing some other large permanent bases around the world, ending all foreign aid payments...then maybe he would take the spot. Honestly though, those suggestions don't even address issues of our personal liberties (the TSA, the Patriot Act, etc), so it's really hard to say how much Ron would be willing to give up in order to take a important office position. It would have to be a really, really good collection of drastic policy changes the party would offer him...and even at that, Ron doesn't care one bit about his own power or personal success, so my gut feeling is that the party and Ron wouldn't be able to come up with any kind of agreement that Ron would accept. He can spread his ideas more boldly by sticking to them, rather than giving some of them up. It's really hard to say how it will all play out, but I think it's fascinating to follow, and I think the GOP will end up being VERY sorry for having given Ron such a cold-shoulder throughout this whole campaign and caucusing process.

 

[Aaron Smith]

The Fed cooking books and giving out false inflation percentages is more indicative of a problem with the Fed than a problem with fiat money.

The Fed doesn't actually produce those phony inflation numbers, the government does...which is an excellent reason to vote for a candidate who openly recognizes and admits that the government is dishonest and damaging. There's only one guy in the race that this describes, and it's not your boy Obama

 

[JeffTD]

Sure, there are dudes like Jeff who will still vote for Obama and big government, but statistics show that he's in a minority for people his age.

The Fed doesn't actually produce those phony inflation numbers, the government does...which is an excellent reason to vote for a candidate who openly recognizes and admits that the government is dishonest and damaging. There's only one guy in the race that this describes, and it's not your boy Obama

Aaron, cut the shit and stop taking pot shots. As far as I knew we were friends, but I don't put up with that kind of crap. You can use as many smug emoticons as you want, but it won't change the fact that I have never once stated that I'd be voting for Obama. The only issues I heralded him on were banking reforms and a small portion of his health care policy.

Gold may very well reach that price in another 4 years, but it is no longer a viable store of public wealth it's now little more than an openly tradable commodity, just like any other stock or precious metal.

 

[Aaron Smith]

Aaron, cut the shit and stop taking pot shots. As far as I knew we were friends, but I don't put up with that kind of crap. You can use as many smug emoticons as you want, but it won't change the fact that I have never once stated that I'd be voting for Obama. The only issues I heralded him on were banking reforms and a small portion of his health care policy.

I'm actually surprised that you would question our friendship simply because I was poking at the Obama issue. Also, when you said "it'd be hard to say that I'm not going to vote for [Obama]", it seemed pretty obvious to me that you were, at the least, leaning primarily towards him. So my statements regarding you and Obama weren't intended as inappropriate or unfair "pot shots", but rather in-line with your own apparent leading preference for President. I didn't really think they seemed very pot-shotty, but I'm sorry for calling you out on something you didn't actually say...?

 

[JeffTD]

My frustration is more borne out of the way you phrased it - in the context of that quote, me voting for Obama wouldn't be for him as "my boy" or "big government," but as an anti-GOP candidate. If we're talking about the possibility of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich becoming president then I absolutely would have to use my vote to try to prevent that from happening, and casting a blank ballot or voting for a third-party candidate won't do that; only voting for Obama will at that point.

 

[Damian B]

Aaron, how do you reconcile the Christian's responsibility to love their neighbor unconditionally, and help them in times of need, with the individualism of Libertarianism and Rational Objectivism (I believe I remember you being a Randian)? Isn't the collective power of the state, which in a properly functioning political system is an extension of the will of its citizens, better equipped to deal with social inequities than an individual?

I haven't read the thread, so if you've already answered a similar question I apologize.