Would Ron Paul make a good president?

[GhostWriter16]

You know what your biggest problem is Dom: You think that there are 3 kinds of people in america: liberals, conservatives and libertarians. You might accidently have gotten this idea from watching too much Fox news.

The truth is, there is in reality as much different political/economical views as there are different people.

You say that liberals would support legalisation of drugs, which is COMPLETELY FALSE. So if I'm hearing you right, you think that all of people who voted democrat support drug legalisation? Think about it a bit please.

What you generalise about "right wingers" is even worse.

You have to learn that you can actually think by yourself. Even if you label yourself as a libertarian, you do not have to automatically adopt every belief that you think a "good libertarian" has to. You can actually take each political issue independently and form a single opinion on it, instead it seems as if you reason this way:

"- What would a true libertarian think on that issue ----> I want to be a true libertarian -----> I will then adopt this opinion on the issue."

What you should be doing:

"- What is the issue about^ -----> what are the cause/effects and consequence of both sides of the questions -----> are they in accordance with my own values ----> I will form my opinion accordingly".

Personally, I have these opinions (among lots of others):

- I would have voted Obama
- I support public healthcare
- I support a progressive tax
- I do not support drug legalisation
- I want to have as few laws as possible concerning what people can and can't do
- For example I do not support mandatory seat-belts or bicycle helmets
- I do not support government subsidies to almost anyone

So what would you label me? Maybe I should run for presidency it seems to me like a good compromise between the two.

Well, I'd have voted for you over Obama

But not over Ron Paul.

Also, I obviously know there aren't "Three kinds of people" however, as a libertarian I feel the government should leave people alone and form opinions accordingly.

@Mobboss- What do you think is wrong with Ron Paul?

 

[duckstab]

I'm against electing anyone who's an ideologue to the Presidency. (And before you claim Obama's an ideologue, consider how unhappy most of the left is with him over things like the Wall Street bailout and his caving on the public option.)

If nearly a half century of life has taught me anything, it's that nobody's right all the time, and nobody's wrong all the time. You want a leader to have principles, of course, but you also want them to have the flexibility and maturity to try to do what's best for the country even if at times they must do something personally distasteful or unpopular with their supporters.

Ronald Reagan (with whom I still mostly disagree) understood this well. For all his rhetoric he was essentially pragmatic and wasn't afraid to compromise with the other side. At the other extreme we have GWB, who, for all his talk of being a "uniter", suffered from a rigidity that made him basically ineffective, particularly in his second term.

So no, I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul for President. Nobody who thinks they have the answer to everything is fit for the job.

 

[LightFang]

I pick Costa Rica!

Does Costa Rica count as a banana republic?

Let the idiots worship and be left behind.

Even though on the outside I'm a jaded cynic, I'm secretly a romantic. I want to help everybody.

 

[MobBoss]

@Mobboss- What do you think is wrong with Ron Paul?

Well, he is nuts. He also has more than a few uncomfortable ties with white supremist groups as well. And I happen to disagree with just about all of his points.

Thats it, in a nutshell.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, he is nuts.

Opinion, however I'm surprised YOU are saying that. That sounds like something someone on the far left would say.

He also has more than a few uncomfortable ties with white supremist groups as well.

Link please?

And I happen to disagree with just about all of his points.

If you did, you'd be either socially conservative or EXTREMELY socially liberal, you'd be fiscally liberal, and you'd be conservative on foreign policy (I do disagree with Paul most on foreign policy, especially his comment about Israel, but I don't think either candidate that was running in 2008 would have been much better in that regard.)

Thats it, in a nutshell.

to find more

 

[Truronian]

Link please?

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ron-paul-and-his-kkk-white/

 

[GhostWriter16]

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/ron-paul-and-his-kkk-white/

OK, I didn't read the whole article, but I read the first 6 comments and my suspicions were right. I'll read it to thank you for your time but it appears it is simply liberal bias talking in that article.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”

Wow, nice blow against Ron Paul, considering I mostly agree with him I must be a racist too

There was nothing racist in Ron Paul's statement.

EDIT: I should clarify that the Jim Crow laws were also illegal and they needed to be repealed, and repealing them was one of the few good things Lyndon Johnson did, however, the government went out of proportions with it after that.

 

[Truronian]

OK, I didn't read the whole article, but I read the first 6 comments and my suspicions were right. I'll read it to thank you for your time but it appears it is simply liberal bias talking in that article.

Liberal bias or no, the article makes reference to documented events such as Paul accepting money from the founder of Stormfront.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Liberal bias or no, the article makes reference to documented events such as Paul accepting money from the founder of Stormfront.

Read the comments in your link and think carefully about them.

Accepting money from someone =/= supporting what they do, it means they are supporting what you do.

Unless you think Obama is a communist since the CPUSA Supports Obama

 

[useless]

Anything which doesn't support your arguement = Liberal Bias

 

[Truronian]

Read the comments in your link and think carefully about them.

Accepting money from someone =/= supporting what they do, it means they are supporting what you do.

Accepting money from a known racist and then refusing to give it immediately back and sever ties, certainly qualifies as having dodgy links with racist organisations which if you remember correctly is what you did not believe he had.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Accepting money from a known racist and then refusing to give it immediately back and sever ties, certainly qualifies as having dodgy links with racist organisations which if you remember correctly is what you did not believe he had.

First of all, you ignored the rest of my post, and I'm going to assume its not intentional.

Second of all, accepting money from someone DOES NOT MEAN BEING LINKED TO THEM Otherwise Obama is a communist.

I think it is clear your argument does not make sense. I'll ask you attempt to think it through and make a better one. You can oppose Ron Paul but calling him a racist is clearly a fail and unprovable at best.

In fact, there is more evidence that Obama is a racist then that Paul is a racist.

 

[useless]

The man took donations from a well known racist. That is a bad PR move waiting to happen.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Obama is biracial. How the heck could he be a racist? It boggles the mind.

EDIT: Crosspost

 

[useless]

Explain, how is Obama racist?

 

[Truronian]

Second of all, accepting money from someone DOES NOT MEAN BEING LINKED TO THEM Otherwise Obama is a communist.

Linked =/= the same as. If what you claim about Obama accepting money from the CPUSA is true then he is linked with them. He's also liked with a large number of other organisations. When someone accepts donations from someone they have linked themselves to them.

You can oppose Ron Paul but calling him a racist is clearly a fail and unprovable at best.

When exactly did I call him a racist? I said he had links with racists, and he does. That is not the same as calling him a racist.

In fact, there is more evidence that Obama is a racist then that Paul is a racist.

I don't really care.

 

[useless]

I assume he means "'BAMMER HATES WHITES!" or something similar.

 

[Cutlass]

In fact, there is more evidence that Obama is a racist then that Paul is a racist.

No one has ever come up with the smallest thing that Obama has done which is racist.

 

[illram]

Ron Paul's criticism of the Civil Rights Act misses the mark. First off he misstates what it does (intentionally or unintentionally) second of all he fails to understand the principle of integration behind it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The man took donations from a well known racist. That is a bad PR move waiting to happen.

Well, a racist person giving money to Ron Paul is mistakenly shooting his own cause in the foot

Obama is biracial. How the heck could he be a racist? It boggles the mind.

EDIT: Crosspost

I'll answer under Cutlass post, but I should point out I don't believe Obama is a racist. There is very slight evidence he is. There is none that Ron Paul is.

Linked =/= the same as. If what you claim about Obama accepting money from the CPUSA is true then he is linked with them. He's also liked with a large number of other organisations. When someone accepts donations from someone they have linked themselves to them.



When exactly did I call him a racist? I said he had links with racists, and he does. That is not the same as calling him a racist.



I don't really care.

Well, if you'll accept that Obama also has communist links then then fine.

No one has ever come up with the smallest thing that Obama has done which is racist.

Tax on tanning salons?

I admit this is a little ridiculous but that's my point, its almost nothing and its STILL more evidence then you have against Paul.

EDIT: Ron Paul, is, to put it frankly, a hardcore state's rights supporter. For me I'm more of a person who will consider the 10th to mean "Either the states can prohibit you or nobody can prohibit you" which yes, makes gay marriage technically constitutional.

Also, I agree with about half of the Civil Rights act. No government, state or federal, has a right to tell someone what to do on their own property, whether its a state government telling them they can't hire blacks or DC telling them they have to hire blacks. I support private property rights, period, hence why I oppose the laws. I did approve of the Jim Crow laws being struck down though.