Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

There's a lot to address there so I'll focus on the highlighted part.

A few of Ron Pauls enviornmental bill sponsership.

Repeal the Soil And Water Conservation Act. (1977)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:H.R.7079:

A bill to ammend Federal Water Pollution Act to allow dumping in private non naviagble waters.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:H.R.7245:

To ammend federal regulations on necessitating bicatch devices for shrimping operations.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:H.R.7245:

Disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:H.J.Res104:

The guy says global warming is a hoax. He's truly an awful candiate. He's also too old. 76, which would be by far the oldest president. He'd probably die in office.

 

Ron Paul also doesn't believe in evolution.

Also, Paul subscribes to the theory of libertarian environmentalism, where landholders in theory have an invested interest in protecting the land.(which to be honest is better than the other 3 who's stance is "fuck the environment"), but I mean, when has this ever happened, in the history of things ever happening. Do we need a history lesson on what use to happen, where things were before environmental regulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

This is all irrevelant anyways, Ron Paul would never be president, he doesn't attract enough support on either side of the political spectrum. He's not in it to win anyways, he's in for influence. He could play kingmaker at a brokered convention, but that's unlikely to happen, but having enough delegates there in any regard helps shape the tone of convention and the message that goes out. More importantly, he's trying to get something from Mitt Romney. Mittens is still going to be the obvious inevitable nominee, and him and Paul have some kind of deal to give either Ron or Rand Paul some type of position. I mean Paul never attacks Mitt Romney.

 

Yes, and without spending time looking for some of his comments on why he sponsered those bills it would appear that Ron Paul would like to destroy the environment.
On the "global warming", after one of the longest and coldest "cool" seasons I've experienced living in the tropics, I'm convinced that the Earths climate changes, but still waiting on proof that the cause is anthropogenic.
Ron Paul is younger than me, but then you're okay with age discrimination? That should be seen as a plus, after all how long would he receive a pension and other costly benefits after leaving office?

Ron Paul remains the ONLY candidate who might begin to initiate the changes needed, and the major change needed now is to once again allow the people a voice in how their government is run at the Federal level.

 

I think that what you say belies the fundamental problem with his school of thought. He believes governments role to be so limited that it should not be used even in cases where intervention is clearly to benfit society. It's not their role he'd argue.

Most of us would say the role of government is to protect the society, so of course enviornmental regulations are a good thing.

Discussing the overwhelmingly scientifically accepted theory of global warming is probably beyond the scope of the thread.

I was mostly being flippant with the age thing. But if Ron Paul is 76 that means he should statistically be dead and would likely die during his term.

 

I'd say he's one of the healthiest of the candidates, despite his age. He challenged them to a bicycle race in a debate. Claimed his medical record to be one page.

 

Ron Paul is very open in his views that the powers of the Federal government should be limited, and expanded ONLY with the consent of the governed, as originally intended. A free people are, and remain free, only when they are recognized as, and allowed to be, the source of their governments powers.
Ideally, the laws created at the Federal level should be concisely written so that ALL people, including our elected politicians can understand them, leaving to the States and their citizens the latitude and means by which to apply and comply based on circumstances which often vary making no one solution the best in all cases. The Federal government and Federal courts should intervene ONLY in cases where the actions of one State imposes harm upon another State, or when the means/enforcement of the law is found inadequate in protecting its inhabitants.

I don't think anyone is claiming that ALL environmental regulations should be done away with.

Statistically, both my parents, four of my Dads older brothers, and I should be dead, but the fact is, we are not.

Another fact is, Ron Paul as President would not/could not impose all the changes that those who denigrate him would like to imply, but he just might be able to entice a greater number of the population to take hold of the reins in steering our government in the direction that "THEY" would like it to progress.

 

Indie

LOL this from someone who has a tendency to either/or attitudes not least in seeming toi think anything to the left of his own views is socialism.

But are taxes too high, especially in the case of wealth – you need to make your case and so far the only case you have put forward is variations on that old fallacy of ‘trickle down’

Basically you are advocating tax cuts that would favour wealth – giving it more power and influence over society and governance.

What regulations are you talking about? The devil is in the detail, and who benefits from the de-regulation. For example the neoliberal mantra was that a de-reregulated financial sector would be good for the economy in fact it almost sunk the economy.

Again we need the detail what agencies and why?

The problem is how the US constitution is interpretation by some on the right; they would seem to want to limit the democratic element in favour of a system that favours the few.

 

Balb

"The problem is how the US constitution is interpretation by some on the right; they would seem to want to limit the democratic element in favour of a system that favours the few."

Care to elaborate?

 

No way, I would not vote for any of those GOP fools. They are a bunch of backwards thinking bigoted jerks and shame on anyone who tries to call themselves a liberal and would vote for him or any of the other GOP's.

 

I think he actually runs a few miles every day or something like that. I hate how people who can't find much to say try to get him on his age.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vXmbAUgzYM&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]A Dozen Things Non-Ron Paul Voters Are Basically Saying - YouTube

 

In about three pages of this thread, I posted 24 broad issues on why Ron Paul would be the absolute wost candidate for a someone like me, who desires a liberal government based on progressive taxation and equitable treatment under law.

And then I joked about how he was 76, and that's what you're focusing on? Not the fact that he votes against environmental protection and against civil rights?

 

Taxes are at 14% which is very low historically and not nearly enough to pay for the government. They need to be raised, but on who? That's the question. Some would like to enlarge the tax base or in other words tax the poor/middle class more. Others want to tax the rich more.

 

Balbie:

After all this time you still refuse to recognize that what I promote is NOT a single either/or, but many choices. I have nothing against socialism, when it exists as a choice without the use of force.

Taxes are too high, and government spends and borrows too much, which has put us deeply in debt. It makes no sense to allow the Federal government to tax the income of workers in each State and then redistribute that money to the States along with some additional funds borrowed. Essentially that has placed an equal burden upon all those who work and pay taxes, creating a single debt bubble which if/when it bursts will leave only those who have wealth not directly connected to our currency untouched.

As long as we allow government to exercise greater power over us, those with wealth will be able to use it to influence those who govern us. Just why do you think the majority of lobbyists congregate in Washington?

The financial sector was mis-regulated NOT deregulated.

There over 570 Government departments and agencies, take your pick, most any of them could be reduced in size, merged into another which does essentially the same, or eliminated as the States could accomplish the same much more efficiently and cost effectively.

When the Constitution is interpreted and used as originally intended, the 'right' interpretation, then and only then is the democratic element exercised in a way that favors the many over the few. Changes to the Constitution and additional powers granted to the Federal government require a super majority in order to amend the Constitution, where the 'few' are more likely to be favored when changes occur through reinterpretation, which excludes the voices of the many entirely.

 

I agree with almost everything I've heard him say. So yes.

 

My tax rate is 25%. It goes up to 35%. I think tax revenue is more than enough. The government is just incredibly inefficient in how it's managed. The director of the Federal Reserve couldn't account for $9,000,000,000,000!!!! That is enough money to spread $30,000 to every man, woman, and child in this country and they can't freakin find it! For eight months, a "high level review" has been conducted and they still can't tell you were the money went. Meanwhile, taxes are paying to investigators to NOT find results.

 

letlovin

"The problem is how the US constitution is interpretation by some on the right; they would seem to want to limit the democratic element in favour of a system that favours the few."

Care to elaborate?

Post 92 and 95 here
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7139513&highlight=senate#post7139513

For example Indie put forward 16th and 17th Amendments as going against what he sees as intended by the the original US constitution – it is an interpretation – one is about wanting a tax cut and the other is about removing power from the majority and giving it to a few.

 

Lode

Yes it’s called evasion and misdirection, its something right wing libertarians use because they don’t have any rational and reasonable answers for actually valid criticism of their ideology.

 

Indie

Ok the same old rhetoric and the same arguments that still have criticisms outstanding on them.

You seem to see anything to the right of your views as socialism even things that are not and as your post 609 indicates your seem to see all ‘socialists’ as evil communists trying to bring the US down.

Yes I and anyone else that’s read your posts know you want to make wealth richer more powerful and influential.

Yes we know you don’t want good governance only to weaken government to favour wealth

And so on and on…

But this did catch my eye

So is this the story the right are going to spin on the financial crash. It’s obvious they would go this way really I mean for them all the woes of the world are the fault of ‘government’ interference and regulation so why not then turn around and blame the ‘government’ for not regulating enough when things go wrong. This of course will just be accepted by many on the right without question (as they accept so many other things without question).

Now there are a number of good books on the origins and reasons for the financial crisis and all of them point to the significant role of financial deregulation or the blocking of regulation.

Try reading – Freefall by Joseph Stiglitz or Whoops!: Why everyone owes everyone and no one can pay by John Lanchester - To name but two

People could also look up the story of Brooksley Born who tried to regulate derivatives and got stopped from doing so by thhe likes of that great friend of Ayn Rand and well known right wing libertarian Alan Greenspan, because he didn’t believe in the regulation of such things.

It seems to me that once more right wing libertarians are trying to use misdirection to cover up the faults within their own ideology.

 

People are assholes, by and large, and need direction. No.