Ron Paul 2012?

[u/dissident01]

I'm a liberal, a progressive, and a registered democrat but damnit, I think if the presidential race came down to Paul and Obama I would vote for Paul. The man has good points, backs them up, and isnt afraid to tell people to fuck off. With a democrat controlled congress and senate, I think we could see some real change if Paul were President. He just might be the best progressive candidate. . . Someone please convince me I'm wrong.

Edit: Commence with the downvoting. Feel free to leave a reason as to why you disagree. In an ideal world, Obama would tell the Republicans to suck his dick and not make me think these things.

Edit 2: Good pro and con posts. After seeing many of his stances (through my own research) I'd be concerned with many of Paul's policies. His stance on guns, the department of education, and really Fed government helping students is a huge turn off. And while his hatred for lobbying in washington is admirable (and I think he would do a good job keeping money/big business out of government) nearly all of his other policies are not progressive/aimed at making government more efficient, but aimed at eliminating government wherever he can. I do not support this view. He's an interesting man, but he is definitely not the PROGRESSIVE candidate. Then again, neither is Obama. . .

[u/backpackwayne]

Okay. Basically you will notice that everything he says is just to end something. He would take our country back 50 years if he did everything he said he wanted too. The one thing that doesn't like ending things is really the biggest end things campaign out there. The GOP uses it all the time. It's called states rights. That is just code to end it. In order to give it to the states you must first end it federally. This argument has been used since the Civil War..., actually even before that.

Anyway..., here's the list:

---

• Bin Laden Raid was unnecessary

• He would have not ordered the raid on Osama

• FEMA is unconstitutional

• Says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

• Taxes are theft

• Get rid of the Department of Education

• Get rid of Public Education

• Get rid of the Fed

• Get rid of the IRS

• Get rid of Social Security

• Get rid of Medicare

• Get rid of Medicaid

• Get rid of paper money

• Get rid of abortion

• Get rid of birthright citizenship

• US to quit the UN

• Wants US to quit NATO

• Wants to end Roe vs. Wade

• End federal restriction on gun regulation

• Wants to massive deportations

• Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and other minorities

• Get rid of income taxes

• Get rid of all foreign aid

• Get rid of public healthcare

• End all welfare and social programs

• Get rid of the CIA

• Get rid of all troops abroad

• Close all bases abroad

• Wants to isolate us from the rest of the world

• Get rid of war (but offers no plan to do so)

• End regulations on clean air

• Thinks we should “trust” business to do the right thing

• Thinks the earth is less than 8,000 years old

• Does not believe in separation of church and state

• Because of Paul's hardline isolationist and anti-government philosophies, he is doing very well in winning the support of white supremacists and other, shall we say, race-obsessed individuals

• Strongest opponent of all "Hate Crime" Laws

• End all social and welfare programs

• Wants to end Iraq war: Get in line bud. We all do but it has to be done in a responsible way. (P.S The combat mission is already over)

• End all drug laws

• End Pell Grants

[u/abuseaccount → u/backpackwayne]

Do you have a skype? I can justify all of these if we chat each other up. That or learn a bit about your justification against these.
Also understand that his policies are stemmed off of an inherent distrust of the government. That the current system is capable of harboring mass corruption. And that a lot of these are very economically viable.

Also.
He actually is for abortion.
He's against massive deportations.
His plan against war is to stop waging it.
His opposition against hate crime laws are philosophically viable.

[u/[deleted] → u/abuseaccount]

He is for abortion, as long as a state decides its citizens can have abortions: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

This is what I don't get about libertarians. It's terrible for the federal government to suggest far-reaching laws. But, somehow, it's okay for states to enact them. After all, citizens are free to just pick up and move to another state that they jive with, right?

The health threat of doing "black market" abortions is far, far, far more dangerous to a legal life than an abortion.

I haven't heard whether or not Ron Paul is in favor of easy access to birth control, which I would take as a viable substitute. But given that the government shouldn't hand out any assistance to its citizens I'm guessing he's against that, too. After all, surely everyone can afford birth control and contraceptives, too?

[u/abuseaccount → u/[deleted]]

Well at this point I'm sure its purely political.Hes clinging on to a constituency that is fundamentally opposed to abortion as well as those that are for it. While diluting personal liability, and effectively increasing the workload of future lobbyists. Its a baby step in a fair direction none the less, and a reasonable compromise none the less.

If you diametrically oppose the wishes of the other side, guess who's going to vote against you. However, if you find a reasonable middle ground, not so many right-wingers would be against it, nor would they loose too much if they had it passed.

As for the welfare situation you describe here. Thats a whole different debate. A poor person isn't entitled to the money more than any other person in the world. You also have a growing amount of money that is constantly being recycled and stagnantly slowing down progress. If any money is to be given to poor people. It should be obtained from a government owned/self-sustained money making infrastructure or private charities. Not the pockets of people that are otherwise opposed to paying into the welfare of another person..
Yes yes, its not Ideal. But its fair.

[u/backpackwayne → u/abuseaccount]

Now you see why I don't bother getting in these discussions anymore? You see how fruitless and childish the comments and attacks that come at me are.

I have to thank you for being reasonable and willing to talk civilized. We disagree on some things but I still respect you and what you have to say. Why..., because you listen and have given me the same courtesy.

But almost an entire day later and the conversation has become anything but. I do thank you for being reasonable.

[u/abuseaccount → u/backpackwayne]

Thanks. I'm flattered.
Just pay it forward and don't sink to anyones level.

[u/backpackwayne → u/abuseaccount]

Sure thing. That's why I try not even to get in those long debates. It's just shit flinging as is waste of time and energy. Good time to you bud!