Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

He's too honest to be a Republican?

 

Ron Paul is one of a very few principled politicians, who can stand on their record.

 

What is he? Republican or Libertarian?
I don't see how he can be both.

 

Or a Democrat, but we tend to ignore third parties so you have to run as a Republican or a Democrat to have any chance at all, and it should be obvious that the Republican party has tended to ignore him more than any of the other primary candidates.

outthere2, you might find that, "Money can only purchase what is made available to be sold.", is applicable in the case of Ron Paul, and a primary reason the party, large donors, and the media have given him little attention.

 

Ironically, I think Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Ron Paul are closer to each other(but not identical) than either party they belong to.

 

Well, we have liberal Democrats, Progressive Democrats, Socialist Democrats, Marxist Democrats, Conservatives Democrats (very few), Liberal Republicans, Conservative Republicans, RINO's, etc. So why can't Ron Paul be a Libertarian Republican? When's the last time a Green party, Communist party, Socialist party, or some other parties candidate even came close to winning National election in the U.S.?

Sometimes I think the people would be much better served if political parties were done away with, as there are simply too many issues for any party to produce an acceptable platform which could appeal to everyone.

 

Ross Perot came close to breaking the monopoly.

 

Another big problem I have with him. (my other being that I think libertarianism is to give the PERSON liberty, and for this to matter, it must be an equal liberty for all, regardless of money or whatever they have) The constitution is not a libertarian document, it establishes a free country, but it also allows for it to be made more or less free-and ron paul has ideas that, at the very least, would make the US no more free, and could create large portions of it with rather little freedom, as per the choice of the states and individual jurisdictions.

It seems that, at the very least, if the US is to be run in a more strictly constitutional sense, me must amend the constitution with a further bill of rights, to clarify rights with regard to a more advanced and interlinked world than it origitally needed to deal with.

 

If Ron Paul can't fix our crony capitalist system who can?

 

Who COULD is mentioned up this page a ways.

But he's NOT similar to ron paul, I think.....

Anyway, WHAT would ron paul do to fix it? He might fix the budget, but more crony and more capitalist would be an integral part of it.

If he was on the ballot he'd be very worthy of consideration..... crazy vs. evil would be an interesting choice and face-off. But as it is, it's very telling, I think, that many of his supporters will be voting for mitt, just because he's not obama. Or not voting for either.

When people say they won't vote for obama, no matter WHAT, they're basically saying "I'm frustrated and childish, so I'll fuck the country worse, because I can't get my whole way". It's the republican strategy in everything as of late..... let us have our way, or we'll sink the country like a stone. So, HOW can I trust anything these people say about ron paul, if they'd take the worst option just because they can't have the best, out of spleen?

 

I understand this outlook. But I see voting for the "lesser of two evils" as enabling "evil" to prosper. This attitude has made the public comfortable with corruption, just as long its not as corrupt as it could be. When I vote for something, it's like I'm giving my stamp of approval. I do not approve of Obama as president, so I'm not going to vote for the man.

 

I understand what you're saying, but only if it doesn't mean voting for the WORSE evil, as I've encountered many threatening to do.

If you write in someone, that's fine.... but it can have negative consequences. Remember when nadar pulled his publicity stunt and got GWB the presidency?

 

Ron Paul... fuck that old sell out twat and his Zionist son. Absolute scum of the earth -- both of them.

I love seeing the gullible Ron Paul supporters being conned so badly.

 

Indie

The charges are that your ideas are not very good ones and the fact that you seem unable to address let alone refute those charges would strongly indicate that they’re not good ideas.

I mean your ideas don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny they seem to collapse when examined, just look at this thread nobody seems able to defend these ideas.

The only way you and others carry on is by denying that any criticism has taken place, but ignoring criticism doesn’t make it go away.

I say it would benefit wealth, which includes wealthy entities like corporations.

I think that the power and influence that comes with having wealth in a money based economy is the problem. The charge that you refuse to address is that your ideas would increase the power and influence of wealth.

Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

 

Indie

LOL – how can I ‘gather all the facts’ when you refuse to debate honestly? I mean if your views are questioned or challenged you just pretend it nothing has been asked or challenged.

BUT it hasn’t been hard to piece together what you seem to think even if on occasion you refuse to confirm it or explain it.

You’ve accused me of this many times but have never been able to prove it. Remember I’ve read your posts and can happily point out where and when you’ve said things (and often do).

To repeat - I’m not trying to change your mind I’m trying to work out why you hold onto ideas you seem incapable of defending from criticism.

I mean your only defence against criticisms that seem to highlight the huge flaws in you views is to ignore them and hope no one notices.

I’m happy and willing to defend my ideas from criticisms and often do why are you so unwilling or unable to do so?

To repeat - I’m trying to work out why you hold onto ideas you seem incapable of defending from criticism.

I’ve read things from many differing political viewpoints, I often drop in at right wing websites (for example places like townhall.com) to see what’s been said.

Depends what you mean by ‘move’?

Things written from a right or left perspective (and all shades thereof) have often made me think. I try to take things on their merit, I look at them and analyse them to see if they stand up to scrutiny and I try and talk to people with similar views.

This means that if I’m for something or against it I have a rational and reasonable reason for doing so.

I think that is a lot better approach than your own which seems to be to just ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t fit in with your beliefs.

You’ve accused me of this before but once again have never been able to prove it. Remember I’ve read your posts and can happily point out where and when you’ve said things (and often do).

So I’ll ask you – what false claims?

But you have argued against democracy and have even suggested that wealth should have extra voting power so it can block the voting wishes of the majority.

Oh once again with the socialism, LOL. As I’ve said to me and others the problem is that both the major parties in the US are basically right wing and to a large extend dominated by the power and influence of wealth.

The problem with your ideas is that they would seem to want to increase wealth’s power.

 

Indie

We went through this in the Question About Operation of Small Government thread, to repeat

“As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.

Protection from harm, protection from exploitation, protection from hardship, protection in sickness (all can be argued to involve aspects of extortion and aggression).

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?”

 

Indie

Can a child choose to be born into disadvantage? I think we agree not - so how is it personally responsible for being born into that harmful position?

*

Also as pointed out many times the greatest effects on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. That can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure.


Being born into advantage gives the possibility of having greater number of choices while disadvantage can limit the number of choices. So effects are not equally distributed, while some can be cushioned against the effects of bad choices, others are not.

*

It is a return of the old self serving con game of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who made bad choices and so don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out many time this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

*

These are just a few of the criticisms of your ideas that you seem unable to address in any rational or reasonable way.

 

Did he?

1992 election results:

Clinton - popular vote 44,909,906 43.0% electoral votes 370
Bush - popular vote 39,104,550 37.5% electoral votes 168
Perot - popular vote 19,743,821 18.9% electoral votes 0

Perot may very well have been the only reason Bush failed to achieve a second term. We'll never know for certain what the outcome of a runoff between Clinton and Bush would have produced.

 

To me the group that might have broke the two party system if it hadn’t been suppressed was the Socialists

I mean against great opposition it is amazing to think that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Mayors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force and would have very likely continued to grow.

But as I said it was suppressed.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

 

Proportional Representation could also change the political landscape, it did before when it was used in the US.
Here are extracts from - A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States

“The most extensive research to date has been produced by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues. Their study, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, systematically analyzed the political effects of PR in five Ohio cities. In many cases their findings were also confirmed by results in other PR cities. For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.

Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.

Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.”

What scuppered PR movement was a mixture of money racial prejudice and fear –

In Cleveland, well-financed opponents sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of PR, with the final one succeeding. Similarly, PR opponents in Hamilton finally won their repeal effort after four failed referendums in 12 years.

Many Americans in the early twentieth century were hostile to political and racial minorities--the very groups aided by PR... They warned whites that PR was helping to increase black power in the city and asked them whether they wanted a "Negro mayor." Their appeal to white anxieties succeeded, with whites supporting repeal by a two to one margin..

In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. Although one or two Communists had served on the PR-elected city council since 1941, it was not until the coming of the Cold War that Democratic party leaders were able to effectively exploit this issue. As historian Robert Kolesar discovered, the Democrats made every effort in their repeal campaign to link PR with Soviet Communism, describing the single transferable vote as "the political importation from the Kremlin," "the first beachhead of Communist infiltration in this country," and "an un-American practice which has helped the cause of communism and does not belong in the American way of life."(3) This "red scare" campaign resulted in the repeal of PR by an overwhelming margin.

As the piece concludes -

While the repeal of proportional representation in these American cities is taken by opponents as evidence that this voting system failed, proponents argue that it is more accurate to conclude that this system was rejected because it worked too well. They note that PR worked well in throwing party bosses out of government--bosses who never relented in their attempts to regain power--and it worked well in promoting the representation of racial, ethnic, and ideological minorities that were previously shut out by the winner-take-all system