• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Whats wrong with Ron Paul?

Democracy Simulator said:
So, while I would encourage any discussion of Ron Paul's ideas, I think that those who dismiss him as an inconsequential nutjob will be in for quite a surprise. 2012 is going to be an interesting year; there are many people unhappy with the current regime that do not see anyone to vote for among the mainstream Republicans or Democrats that cares one bit about the issues that they see as important. When this anger and disappointment is excluded from mainstream discourse, interesting things will happen. Ron Paul is currently polling at 18% as a 3rd party candidate. Add the OWS support to that and you have a significant 3rd force in American politics. This almost certainly means that the Republican candidate will not be successful, but it also means that Obama will finally have to answer some tough questions about his progressive credentials and what he is going to do to address cronyism and restore civil liberties. And that, surely, will be thanks to Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
OWS support? I agree that Obama needs to answer for some significant failures but I've no clue how Ron Paul can do any of that.
 
RandFan said:
OWS support? I agree that Obama needs to answer for some significant failures but I've no clue how Ron Paul can do any of that.
Click to expand...

Well the way I see it is that Ron Paul opens up the discourse on several areas that Obama has failed, see my first paragraph of the previous post. As for OWS support, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul necessarily gets a lot of support from that crowd, but rather that both those groups are dissatisfied with 'business as usual', and that they may find some common purpose in 2012. Ron Paul's 'dangerous to the status quo', quote aptly depicts his support, who are happy to see themselves in that role. OWS, although lacking a clear manifesto, fulfill a similar role.
 
RandFan said:
OWS support? I agree that Obama needs to answer for some significant failures but I've no clue how Ron Paul can do any of that.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure how the conclusion that RP could pull OWS support even came about. Tea Party support? Sure.

Ron Paul wants to dismantle the entire infrastructure (that should have been) used to punish the bankers (ya know, that bit that kicked off OWS). Ron Paul wants companies to be able to do what they want without risk of Gov't interference/regulations (which will become "at the expense of the majority of US citizens), not increased restrictions on what companies can and cannot do (as OWS seems to support, even if it's many different restrictions/regulations).
 
Democracy Simulator said:
Well the way I see it is that Ron Paul opens up the discourse on several areas that Obama has failed, see my first paragraph of the previous post. As for OWS support, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul necessarily gets a lot of support from that crowd, but rather that both those groups are dissatisfied with 'business as usual', and that they may find some common purpose in 2012. Ron Paul's 'dangerous to the status quo', quote aptly depicts his support, who are happy to see themselves in that role. OWS, although lacking a clear manifesto, fulfill a similar role.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. I don't see it but hey, time will tell.

BobTheDonkey said:
I'm really not sure how the conclusion that RP could pull OWS support even came about. Tea Party support? Sure.

Ron Paul wants to dismantle the entire infrastructure (that should have been) used to punish the bankers (ya know, that bit that kicked off OWS). Ron Paul wants companies to be able to do what they want without risk of Gov't interference/regulations (which will become "at the expense of the majority of US citizens), not increased restrictions on what companies can and cannot do (as OWS seems to support, even if it's many different restrictions/regulations).
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
It's like OWS members don't have different beliefs/priorities or something.
 
Well let's see. When has a libertarian belief system benefited any populace where it was tried?

Never? Not once in all of history?

That should say something.

We have an FDA, FAA, NTSB, NOAA and EPA for a reason. A society without them is not one any of us would want to live in.
 
Travis said:
Well let's see. When has a libertarian belief system benefited any populace where it was tried?

Never? Not once in all of history?

That should say something.

We have an FDA, FAA, NTSB, NOAA and EPA for a reason. A society without them is not one any of us would want to live in.
Click to expand...
This idea that govt agencies are a net negative has no basis in reality. People just assert that we would be better without them. Modern liberal democracies are measurably better than those that aren't. Oddly enough these modern liberal democracies have govt departments. You can argue that this is just a correlation but you have a problem with the negative correlation of nations without govt departments being measurably worse.
 
And then there is the Scooby Doo aspect. What's that you ask?

Well, in the Scooby Doo universe everything is abandoned. Ski resorts, marinas, libraries, museums, amusement parks, they are always abandoned. Except for the one scary costumed man that wants to scare the kids away!

That scary man is Ron Paul. He knows his economic policies will shatter the economy and lead to mass emigration and that will give him plenty of time to search through these abandoned places looking for his precious, precious gold. And scare away the "meddling kids" when they occasionally arrive.
 
Can anyone get this back on track with the rare non-insane Paulantics?
 
Kay said:
But think of the people who are being groped by TSA agents! If a company sexually harassed its workers, The Market would take care of it. How many reports of sexual harassment were there before the government interfered, after all?
Click to expand...

How many are there now?
 
RandFan said:
This idea that govt agencies are a net negative has no basis in reality. People just assert that we would be better without them. Modern liberal democracies are measurably better than those that aren't. Oddly enough these modern liberal democracies have govt departments. You can argue that this is just a correlation but you have a problem with the negative correlation of nations without govt departments being measurably worse.
Click to expand...

Amen!

I'd again point to the Preamble to the Constitution. We the people authorized the federal government to secure the "blessings of liberty", among other purposes. For some strange reason, the states' rights movement, at least some flavors of libertarianism, the Tea Party, and even what was called Neo Federalism, like to portray the federal government as the usurper of freedom.

Just looking through history is enough to show that it's not so. We had to fight a horrible bloody civil war to get the states to accept the abolition of slavery! And we repeated the same struggles somewhat less bloodily in the desegregation and Civil Rights movements. The SCOTUS put an end to state laws limiting women's reproductive rights. And so on. . . .
 
I'll point you toward some prisoners of war in a Cuban military base who disagree with you, JoeTheJuggler.
 
madfoot said:
I'll point you toward some prisoners of war in a Cuban military base who disagree with you, JoeTheJuggler.
Click to expand...

A problem that can be addressed without tearing everything down. A problem that does not negated the other problems your favored solution would create. A problem that is not intrinsic to government departments.
 
madfoot said:
I'll point you toward some prisoners of war in a Cuban military base who disagree with you, JoeTheJuggler.
Click to expand...
That was a result of an incompetent, brain-damaged boob's having wheedled his way into power and then ridden the wave of mass hysteria to new heights of depravity.
 
leftysergeant said:
That was a result of an incompetent, brain-damaged boob's having wheedled his way into power and then ridden the wave of mass hysteria to new heights of depravity.
Click to expand...

Point of order: Obama seems to be all on board the Guantanamo Train, despite appearances on the '08 campaign trail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom