The article I wrote entitled 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul has generated tons of comments, most from his supporters. Here is just a quick response to some of these. I have not provided references within this response but please see the previous article for tons of them.
Ok, so I am going to try and put my thoughts down and make sense while doing it. A whole lot of responses have been along the vein of “But he’s only going to be president, I don’t agree with him but he can’t mess up that badly.”
What about Congress, the Supreme Court? These other branches are not going to be filled with people who will make sure that he won’t mess things up too bad. When you think about who you are going to vote for, you have to look at the whole picture.
The fact is that Ron Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee and 0 were successfully enacted. He may have big ideas and want to really change things but he hasn’t been successful thus far.
So if I buy into his rhetoric, which I don’t, I am still faced with the fact that the Paul presidency could be an entire 4 years with a “lame duck” president.
The Bush administration has raped this country, and others, and left us with a huge gaping hole where once we had our civil rights and integrity. Again, Paul’s rhetoric sounds nice, “The Constitution!” is his war cry. However, as a liberal Democrat, it is very important to me to ensure that all of our citizens really are afforded equal rights. Ron Paul does not support this, with his words he doesn’t support this, with his record he doesn’t support this.
People have picked apart my arguments and most have countered with inaneness or just craziness. For instance, it certainly does matter on the issue of abortion whether or not his record matches what he says. He’s personally against it but would leave it up to the states, yet he has several time proposed legislation that would label a fetus a human. Now, in all reality how would that not lead to a ban on abortion, at least for the majority of the country?
So, then there’s an abortion ban and still no good sex education or contraceptive availability. Even if America defies statistics and abortions end there, what happens to the thousands of unwanted babies? Social services that would have helped them are gone under Paul, it may surprise the Religious Right, but unwanted children aren’t exactly snatched up and adopted. What then?
Our homosexual citizens will see no relief in their quest for equal rights. Again his personal views and record don’t support his rhetoric on this issue. Like most president’s he will have a cabinet and nominate justices that are in line with his views.
Our environment will be further destroyed. He sponsored a bill that would stop conservation efforts that interfered with recreational boating. That doesn’t sound to me like someone with good priorities.
It has been shown in our recent history, remember the Industrial Revolution, that without some sort of regulation (ie OSHA and the minimum wage) business owners take great advantage of their workers, at times to the cost of their lives. Just because someon has an ideal of how things should be that doesn’t change basic human nature. Businesses will still be greedy and without oversight we will end up right back to those good ol’ days of worker abuse.
Now, do I think that the government is run efficiently? Absolutely not, but I do believe that there are ways to fix the things that are broken without removing the whole system and thus ensuring chaos. Someone said either here or on Reddit, that basically both Republicans and Democrats want smaller government just in different places. The difference in my view, is that Democrats want our people protected and our tax money to fund programs to help the taxpayer. The other side would do the opposite, cut social services, give incentives to big business, and further discrimination.
While Paul talks a good talk it is clear, to me, that he is just like every other Republican candidate underneath except a lot more eccentric. And just to reiterate I encourage EVERYONE to RESEARCH on their own, I do not expect, nor want, anyone to make decisions based on other peoples’ opinions.
Well, at least his worst case scenario is no different than current scenario (so it seems to me). Sadly you could be right, and we get someone who was as bad for this country as Lenin turned out for Russia. All people wanted was a change for the better, and look what happened! Summer, I appreciate your dive into the possibility that Ron Paul could be a disaster for this country. Sometimes things get so hyped up we forget the bad things that could happen and they end up taking us by surprise. Still, I support Ron Paul because his worst case scenario is still a hell of a lot better than the rest of the Republicans’ and most of the Democrats’ worst case scenarios (in my opinion). I will keep in mind that it is possible Ron Paul does not turn out as great as his message would have him, but sometimes the message is too good to ignore. There are many great things to be liked about Ron Paul that I cannot dismiss due to a loose possibility he will go against what he has said (If who I support shows signs of corruption once in office, I will not ignore it and I definitely wouldn’t vote for a screw up a second time). To have a candidate who has the personal and political views against violence of any kind that match Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. is incredible. Quaker peace and nonviolent ideals reflected by the actions of the president could do wonders for this nation.
Your best argument that he, in control of the federal government, will abandon the minorities and leave them unprotected from state and local tyranny is a sad mistrust and fear of your neighbors and fellow citizens. It is mistrust and fear that drive hate and racism. You have every right to mistrust an individual you do not know, but that does not prove them guilty of anything. You may also trust anyone you wish to trust, but that does not prove them innocent. Ron Paul chooses to trust the individuals who are innocent of all crimes over trusting the government who is guilty of most crimes. That is his personal opinion, and his message of freedom backs that opinion.
I hope you will back off attacking Ron Paul with bias. (Your opinions are valid and may even be supported by your research, however they remain opinions.) I hope instead you convince people to vote for Dennis Kucinich and advance the Democrat dark horse candidate’s chances of winning the democratic primaries.
Cheers
Mark, Thanks for the comment. I agree with you that he is better than all the Republicans, and some of the Democrats. However unless he was better than ALL the Democrats I wouldn’t support him. Unlike some of the commenter’s on the first post I feel that President is a hard job that requires the best qualified candidate.
I’m glad you have such faith in your neighbors and fellow citizens (and big business if your a Ron Paul supporter). Sadly I am a liberal living in Topeka Kansas, a hopelessly red city in a hopelessly red state. As such I essentially have no voice in the local on my own. However as part of a larger, nationwide, voice I do have some influence over my government. If the nationwide aspect of that were removed I would be helpless against whatever the neocon conservatives and Christian fundamentalists wanted to impose on me.
As for bias, well this is a progressive liberal blog as it says in our header. We work hard to give good references so you can see where our opinions are coming from, but everything has bias. While we could write in a manner that has no bias, it would be as fun as reading a dictionary.
Anyhow, this is getting long. Thanks for the well written comment, and I hope to hear more from you in the future.
Don’t forget it was a Democrat that enacted the Federal Reserve System as well as federal income tax. (Woodrow Wilson) This sytem of creating money out of thin air helped get us into both World Wars, conflicts in Vietnam and Korea, a cold war, and the invasion of Iraq! Not to mention the inflation of the dollar to the point of 4% its original worth.
And who opposed Reconstruction after the Civil War? The Southern white Democrats! Please re-think your party. I’ll give you guys Kucinich and Gravel, but they honestly have no shot. This is a media sponsored Democratic year. Collectivism is hoping for increased african american, and female voters. Don’t be fooled…
Paul’s record is unmatched. Believe what you want. Only non voters are going to be swayed by your antics. Te truth is Paul has enough supporters with a fire to go out and do what it takes to get him elected. Hopefully you’ll see he isn’t the bad candidate you want him to be.
Summer, I have read your comments and you bring up several good points. I think were we to talk, we would agree on most every goal, whether peace in the world or guaranteeing equal education for inner city kids as the wealthy (my #1 issue).
I come from a very liberal family, my mother was a member of the Communist party (and followed by the FBI), our house was firebombed by KKK because my parents were involved in the civil rights movement of the early 60′s, and I grew up thinking of collective groups rather than individuals, always thinking “the common good” trumps individual rights.
Over the years, I have realized more and more that the principles of collectivism, no matter how well-intentioned, always seem to hurt those most who this philosophy purports to help.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on abortion rights and gay rights. I wrote an article recommending he make the following three statements:
1. I pledge to do whatever I can to ban states from refusing marriage licenses based on the gender or sexual orientation of the applicants.
2. I pledge to take no action to overturn Roe vs. Wade while I am in office.
3. I pledge to issue an executive order to the military to change the rulebook so that all personnel would be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation.
Notwithstanding, I just contributed $1,000 to his campaign and am registering as a Republican (aarrrgh) just so I can vote for him in the primaries.
The reason is that if you look very deep into history and current events, the truth is, the world Ron Paul’s policies would lead to is exactly what you and I want- a peaceful world, where countries trade, not fight, and where everyone’s rights are protected, and where opportunity abounds so that no one goes hungry, no one lacks excellent health care, education, or the benefits of a high standard of living.
How much he could accomplish is debatable. But the opportunity to support his vision is one that will not come again in our lifetimes.
I would beg you to continue to research with an open mind as I did- Ron Paul as well as Barack and Hillary, and perhaps you will feel, taking all factors into account, that supporting Ron Paul is by far the best choice.
> he is just like every other Republican candidate underneath
Do you respect the opinion of MoveOn.org? They and many other organizations are running this commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh-PxT12rpE
Here is just a quick response to some of these. I have not provided references within this response but please see the previous article for tons of them.
Yet you demanded the people who replied to your previous article to provide references and after many did, you instead give them this article which has less references.
You may counter that you did say you were providing a quick response yet in reply to one of the commenters in your previous article, you demanded a higher standard when some of them were providing a quick response.
A whole lot of responses have been along the vein of “But he’s only going to be president, I don’t agree with him but he can’t mess up that badly.”
I disagree. Many of the responses you got especially the early to middle ones and the high quality ones did not contain this. You even replied to one and said since they provided facts, you would take your time to research further.
Even if one can interpret them saying this, the way you write this make them appear to be their words rather than your own interpretations and as a reader of the previous article’s comments, even if I do find it plausible that some posts could be interpreted as “I don’t agree with him”, focusing on the content of the medium (well thought) to high quality (well referenced) posts of the previous article replier’s, I have concluded that none of those can be interpreted as “But he’s only going to be president” rather many posters felt “He NEEDS to be president NOW at this moment in time” and still there are those who support him completely that posted.
Even if I am wrong in interpreting your post as downplaying these people’s comments, the fact that you instead resorted to generalities rather than actual quoting of these people in my opinion, take away from your original insistence of demanding references to criticisms posted on your previous article.
It is as if you are saying that your well referenced responses are up to the highest quality in research and that you demand the same from those who reply to you and yet your quick responses are supposed to be the lowest and lowest of qualities and that you do in fact make no remorse in spinning and manipulating the reader in your non-referenced responses.
I do not however doubt that you can grab a quote here and there and use them as examples that these are what a majority of Ron Paul supporters who replied to your previous article say as a whole.
You might then argue that anyone could check the previous article unfortunately many readers who do not know Ron Paul who then read your previous article might skip over the long comment section and this is more likely than unlikely due to the way blogs are designed and I find it hard to believe that you wouldn’t have known this when writing this article.
There is also the fact that if the people really could stomach long comments, there’s very little reason for them to not have already gone and do their own research. That leaves the people who couldn’t stomach reading long comments and then they could easily get the wrong impression from reading both this and your previous RP articles alone and this in fact has already happened if the readers here would look at some of the comments in your previous article.
Some other parts of the statement that I think aren’t a majority of the responses in your previous article as you so claim are:
“He can’t mess up that badly” – I think the more accurate version should be “Among the candidates, he’s the least likely to mess up due to his record, experience and strict constitutionalist principles and the most likely to be honest among many of the candidates.”
“I don’t agree with him” – I think the more accurate version should be “I disagree with his politics however I am voting for him because I respect him for sticking to his principles and besides that, he does not impose his personal beliefs on me”
Overall, the interpretations (both mine and yours) need alot of work however in my opinion, the current way you have written them are of such inaccuracy even for a quick response, it makes me doubt how objective you really are when you did your research or when you wrote this article.
When you think about who you are going to vote for, you have to look at the whole picture.
The whole picture for me has to be both include the forests and the trees. Neither one I got from reading this article after having read the comments from the previous one. Maybe you should follow your own advice?
The fact is that Ron Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee and 0 were successfully enacted. He may have big ideas and want to really change things but he hasn’t been successful thus far.
The “thus far” scenario you have presented ignores the recent events and support he has gotten from the people.
So if I buy into his rhetoric, which I don’t, I am still faced with the fact that the Paul presidency could be an entire 4 years with a “lame duck” president.
You wouldn’t know because you don’t buy into his rhetoric so the rest of the statement is hypothetical.
The Bush administration has raped this country, and others, and left us with a huge gaping hole where once we had our civil rights and integrity. Again, Paul’s rhetoric sounds nice, “The Constitution!” is his war cry. However, as a liberal Democrat, it is very important to me to ensure that all of our citizens really are afforded equal rights. Ron Paul does not support this, with his words he doesn’t support this, with his record he doesn’t support this.
You forgot a huge chunk of the resources was also spent. This in my opinion is what makes Ron Paul better right now than all democrats including Kucinich and Gravel.
In a world of limited resources, I’m doubtful of anyone who can claim to manage these resources while continuing spending resources on other things like enforcing equal rights or in other words, enforcing their moral standards on others.
Matthew 16-24
Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[a] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[b] No one is good but One, that is, God.[c] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[d] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[e]
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth.[f] What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
In a world of limited resources, Jesus did not take neither from the Pharisees nor from Donators rather he asked that others donate while he provide his healing services when he could have easily become Robin Hood if he is truly the Son of God and he could have easily used his influence to ensure everyone could afford equal rights by forcibly taking the riches from the man in the name of giving to the poor, in the name of enforcing equal rights. Yet here, he is clearly imparting an advise by which not only promotes inequality, it makes the rich man poorer than the poor in this world and lo and behold the lack of the word should in Jesus’ words despite his previous words being should.
I am no theology or translation expert though I will say this, even in the King James version of the Bible which I have, the words are written:
“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.”
Even here, Jesus went with ” go and sell” and the should part was the bit about treasure in heaven rather than tell the man that he should give to the poor. (thus depriving him of his freedom)
People have picked apart my arguments and most have countered with inaneness or just craziness.
I disagree. Some did, most countered with politeness. Even if that’s how you see most did it, you are ignoring those who provided references and refuted you with respect.
For instance, it certainly does matter on the issue of abortion whether or not his record matches what he says. He’s personally against it but would leave it up to the states, yet he has several time proposed legislation that would label a fetus a human. Now, in all reality how would that not lead to a ban on abortion, at least for the majority of the country?
This makes no sense in that it sounds like you want him to either ban abortion or allow abortion when you have clearly stated that he would leave it up to the states.
So, then there’s an abortion ban and still no good sex education or contraceptive availability.
Spin. Whether intentionally or accidentally, I do not know. Your conclusion to me does not even match with your premise. It sounds to me that you are lumping an abortion ban (federal gov’t.) with sex education (local) and contraceptive availability (business).
Now, do I think that the government is run efficiently? Absolutely not, but I do believe that there are ways to fix the things that are broken without removing the whole system and thus ensuring chaos.
Spin. Whether intentionally or accidentally, I do not know. You argue against Paul and yet you paint him first as an anarchist before doing so.
Someone said either here or on Reddit, that basically both Republicans and Democrats want smaller government just in different places. The difference in my view, is that Democrats want our people protected and our tax money to fund programs to help the taxpayer. The other side would do the opposite, cut social services, give incentives to big business, and further discrimination.
Limited Resources
Iraq War
Planned Iran War
Proposed intent to use nuclear weapons by some candidates which would lead to war and further destruction of the environment
While Paul talks a good talk it is clear, to me, that he is just like every other Republican candidate underneath except a lot more eccentric. And just to reiterate I encourage EVERYONE to RESEARCH on their own, I do not expect, nor want, anyone to make decisions based on other peoples’ opinions.
No it is not clear to you since in one of your comments, you said you were still researching and hence why you weren’t able to reply from the many referenced posts that went against your own.
By stating that it is clear to you, you have pretty much painted a picture where your research is absolute and others are inferior, not just different. Not only that, rather than using your research as presenting Paul, you have used your conclusions from your research, set up a hypothetical scenario, concluded from it even further and presented it as your response. Your actions appear to imply that everyone should interpret their own research rather than research at all. Though you may encourage others, I honestly encourage you to encourage yourself first.
SUMMER GREAT BLOG!! LOVED IT!!! it’s time we start showing these brainwashed drones who their god really is. also in that video it also exposes dr.paul’s real agenda. he says he wants to leave the decision of abortion up to the states but in that video he clearly states that they need to reverse the roe vs. wade.
brainwashed drone? haha… That’s the best you could come up with for those of us who have read, researched, and made a conclusion based on facts? I would bet, whether they are polite or not that any Ron Paul supporter could tell you Ron Paul’s platform on almost all the issues. I’d also be willing to bet that’s better then many can do for the other candidates.
Sometimes people incorrectly state that Ron Paul doesn’t believe in regulations. Wrong. He believes in regulations barring the following:
*violence
*coercion
*theft
*fraud
Any regulations beyond that are unjustified and an infringement on individual liberty.
Regarding taxes on the rich, I think they are completely immoral. Just because someone is rich, does not mean they have any less right to their possessions. The only criteria with whcih to judge legitimacy of possession is whether the person acquired those possessions through coercion/theft or though mutually voluntary transactions (e.g. making something and selling it to a willing customer).
The tax code becomes increasingly complicated each year, as the IRS plays a cat and mouse game with tax-evaders, creating new tax regulations, and tax evaders finding new loopholes. The tax code is so complex now that it requires 66,000 pages to explain it all. Complying with all of these tax regulations uses up $265 BILLION dollars a year now, that’s 2% of the economy used up for filing taxes each year. The income tax must be eliminated and people’s freedom needs to be respected.
Regulations, taxation, and especially the centralized banking regime that is the federal reserve have been disastarous for Americans.
Why do you think birth rates in America keep going down? It’s not because of contraceptives, that’s nonsense. The real reason is that people are getting poorer and can’t afford to raise a family any more.
Since 1971, median wages in America have remain virtually changed. For the 25-34 demographic, median wages are lower today than they were way back in 1971! For the first time in American history, personal savings rates are in the negative.
Nixon took the US wholly off the Gold Standard in 1971, and Ron Paul immediately knew this would lead to disaster for Americans and decided to run for office. His foreboding proved justified as the middle class was wiped out by the depreciation of their dollar savings, and decrease in wages over the last three decades.
Prior Restraint:
Newspapers are not allowed to slander people, yet there is no government bureaucracy that pre-approves every thing that people write before it is allowed to be published. Prior restraint is looked on as a tyrannical approach with respect to free speech. Yet that is the approach government has taken with every thing else, like the environment for example. Instead of relying on the judicial system to deal with injustice, America has become a bureaucratic nation that does not permit anything unless it has been inspected by some government agency. This is in effect punishing innocent people with red-tape/compliance-costs for the crimes that a few may commit. It is no longer a free nation. The principle of prior restraint must be rejected if America if it is to prosper and be free again.
For Summer Ludwig,
It is USUAL a “decent”, honest Representative NOT have legislation his passed in Congress, honey. “Your” elitest government truely works for the benefit of the one who is elected and the terminology do describe the procedure is pork barrel politics. Please research the meaning of “pork barrel” legislation and you’ll see what I mean.
You’re a smart young person. Do you agree on all issues with your parents and friends? I know that you don’t. No one thinks alike, so why do people take “small” issues as being equal to the Big Picture.
I’m a 59 year-old American with a wife but without kids. My legacy is in others, not my own flesh and blood. Hon, look a the issue of Liberty and Freedom and if you think any other issues competes with that – please vote for anyone of the (not Ron Paul) other candidates – you WILL destroy your “last hope for the future”.
Cassy, leaving it up to the states *means* reversing Roe vs. Wade- it’s the same thing.
I don’t agree with Dr. Paul here… but he is simply saying the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to overrule the states.
He understands it is a complex issue and does not want to ban abortion nationally, just let each state decide, just like they do with prostitution or gambling, for example.
Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but not in California. So if you want to hire a hooker (legally), go to Vegas. This is sort of a compromise.
I think if we want respect for our view that a woman should have a right to choose, we must also respect those others who feel it is an act of violence against a living being.
That’s how pro-life people feel, the ones I’ve talked to, anyway, they feel it is weird that killing a baby in the womb is legal. I know it’s hard to understand, but right or wrong, that’s how they feel, they are not trying to control women, but protect babies.
Also, I would hardly characterize Ron Paul supporters as “brainwashed drones”- I am finding most of them have an extensive and impressive understanding of politics, economics, and society.
I would say the Ron Paul’s liberal supporters, if anything, are more knowledgeable than the conservative ones, from what I have read.
Despite Dr. Paul’s views on abortion, they feel the rest of his agenda is so badly needed that overall it will be a much better country and world to live in were Dr. Paul to be in the White House.
Dr. Paul sees a future where there are almost no abortions because young people are well-educated and responsible enough not to have unplanned pregnancies, so it really won’t be an issue at some point.
It is difficult to disagree with Ludwig’s views, but it is also impossible to deny one core factor, a factor which has not been tested for at least four generations, which is the will of a mass of people to seek reprieve from a top heavy structure which has created an core elite which, in turn, threatens the very existence of the little guy.
That is the primary message of Ron Paul, as i undrstand it, and no-one can deny that the Republic, as it was intended to exist, is about to cross it’s Rubicon and morph into something more like a European state of the sort which our original American Revolution overthrew in favour of the very Republic we all think we still live in.
If there is ANY chance that Ron Paul is able to successfully retard the political progress from free republic to Democratic oligarchy well then I am willing to take that chance at the cost of all the issues raised by Ludwig because, after all, as a nation of free people minus the burden of an overbearing central state, we will overcome of the ancilliary issues raised by Ludwig far better than if we simply left the entire lot to an autocratic overbearing Federal governement – no matter how much that Federal Government becomes more efficient than Ron Paul’s supposed “lame duck” presidency.
My primary inspiration for rpesenting this argument is the Presidency of Jackson who, without the support of free Americans willing to suffer economic hardship before surrendering their liberties, was able to survive serious economic traume and put our Republic back on track to becoming history’s most efficient economy for over half a century.
So whatever Ron Paul’s political flaws are, if he can reverse the process of overbearing socialism and excesive Federal Government, well then he is entitled to my support.
Hi There Polar!
I too came away with the distinct impression that Summer needed to practise what she preached and do some more research but with more of an open mind.
By the end of this post it really sounded like her mind was already made up regardless of any discusion.
I thought this after the first post, this second one has just confirmed it for me.
Hi Summer,
Thanks for the post…