What is wrong with Ron Paul?

[Apoc]

As far as I can see...nothing.

Aside from the fact he gets much less media coverage...seriously in britain it appears that there are only three runners for the american presidency, McCain, Obama and Clinton...all of whom I think would be awful...i only discovered Ron Paul when i went out of my way to look at the candidates still in the running and man, Ron Paul despite being republic i've agreed with everything he's ben saying.

As far as I can tell, he's a real peoples candidate, he's not a puppet idiot of corporations, elite and secret societies like the free masons, skull and bones, illuminati etc my only concern is that should he win (which is doubtful seeing as the corporations, elite and societies control the voting) he'd be taken out like JFK was for going against them.

My question is, though this corporate media blackout of his campaigning has hidden him from the eyes of britain and the american public who only watch the likes of FOX,CBS, BBC...and gotten near everyone not in the loop having never heard of him and only thinking there where three runners...do you, the quill, actually know that he's still there? still in the running? have the quill non americans even heard of him, is the media blackout on him in oz and europe also?

[sir archely]

well, the problem with our current election process is that basically, money = face time = nomination. i love the simpsons episode halloween special where Kang and Kodos kidnap Bob dole and Bill clinton, are subsequently revealed to be aliens, but one gets elected anyway, because "it's a two-party system. what are you going to do? vote independent? go ahead, throw your vote away." that's not an exactly accurate quote, but that pretty much represents the american political system.

i would say that i think most people know who Ron Paul is, if not exactly all of his political stances.

even if he was a mainline candidate, i'd never vote for him. my main problem with him? he's about the most conservative congressman within my voting lifetime, and probably much longer than that. and i mean conservative in the older sense, of foreign non-involvement, withdrawing from UN in the interests of american sovereignty, screwing immigrants, heavily pro-life, and on.

he does support things i like, such as getting rid of the patriot act, but most of those things are done because of his libertarian interests, and not, as far as i can tell, out of any reasoning that i could support.

[Amelia]

He got alot of coverage here in Spokane and he stopped here but hes anti-choice and Im prochoice and thats very important to me so he does not get my vote.

[wiggin]

Heh, Ron Paul is a loon. Just a few weeks ago, he was the sole member of Congress to vote against HR493 (aka the bill against genetic discrimination). He routinuely votes on and says things that are simply nuts. Sure, he can try positioning himself as an anti-establishment candidate, but that's about his only good feature.

Ender

[Buck]

Most americans are aware of Ron Paul, and although he does have a pretty fanatical following they (like him) are a bunch of unrealistic loons.


Are you aware that he is against taxes, public education, and health care? Seriously, no thanks. Dont get me wrong, he makes some good points, but that doesn't excuse the batshit crazyness that comes out of his trap.

[jabbernaut]

Ron Paul got his fair share of coverage during his run, and even more than some of the other primary candidates because he stayed in longer. After Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney were gone, McCain, Paul, and Huckabee kept up quite a fight.

I for one was really rooting for Huckabee, and not just because I'm less than thrilled with McCain. (Oh yeah, I'm a republican in case anyone didn't know that.) Somewhat similar to Paul, Huckabee too was for MAJOR reform of the tax system and for a foreign policy not chiefly concerned with "exporting democracy"... but not to the point of an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, which Paul supported and is probably one of the main reasons Paul never clicked with the republican base.

Meggles once met Ron Paul on a high school class trip to D.C., so it was kinda neat for her to see him running for president... but neither of us voted for him.

And I do agree, Obama/Hillary vs. McCain is a pretty sorry selection to choose from. Stupid two-party system. We pick from 50 candidates to be Miss Amercia, but only two to be president.

[Anita Blake]

what's wrong with John McCain? I mean, were I american, I"d probably be a democrat, but looking at John MCCain, and listening to him he seems very realistic and actually fairly intelligent. He seems rather likeable, actually, with fairly solid ideals and has a good head on his shoulders. Everyone here talks about how crazy he is, but I don't see it. Every now and then when he talks about the war his ideas might sound a little off, but when he explains what he means (like the whole 100 years in Iraq comment, where he was basically saying that Iraq would/should become like a colony in all but name for 100 years, with a steady, but not "Active" US Military presence) it really looks like he's thought about what he's saying and isn't saying it just to be popular.

Hillary would be great, but Obama looks more and more like he'll clinch the nomination. And probably win the presidency because the people seem to really want to get out of the politics of rich old white men who design their entire political careers to the benefit of themselves.

This Ron Paul character sounds interesting. but without the support of a major party, there's no money. Without money, there's no campaign, without campaign, no one knows who the hell you are.

Though I do believe that there should be spending caps on elections. Because the system seems to work like this: the richest man (or person most accomplished in fundraising) wins. That's not right.

[AquaFizz]

And probably win the presidency because the people seem to really want to get out of the politics of rich old white men who design their entire political careers to the benefit of themselves.

Am I the only one who realizes that the ONLY part of that description that doesn't still fit Obama is white? In which case, I really don't think thats a good enough reason to vote for someone. Just like I think the only thing that makes Hillary stand out from that description is that she's not a man. Another reason not good enough to make her my president.

And, McCain's comment. RIGHT! Make them like a colony and make a country do what we want them to for 100 years. Make them have a democracy they may not want encourage a religion I can garuntee most of them don't want and no doubt spend MORE of our money (that we don't have) to keep things in order over there. Order as in..American order. Doesn't that entail doing the things our founding father's got sick of and thus left to escape from? Hey! Isn't that kind of what's been done to Ireland? "Heeeey, Poor Guy! We'll come help you! We'll show you GREAT ways to do things. THEN, when you don't like our ways, we won't care! Welcome to the family, buddy! Settle in because we're not letting you go anywhere!"

...I've probably stretched it. I'm a wee bit pissy at the moment.

Anyway, Ron Paul did not get much share of coverage at all. But, lets face it, that's because he wasn't who half the people at the big news networks will be voting for. So why should they let anyone else vote for him?

[Anita Blake]

I think his intention is less "colonize" and more maintaining a military presence, much like what's been done in Japan for the last 50+ years.

meh, if I talk about anything else, i'll just be changing topics.

But absolutely Hillary & Obama are rich white men. More or less. I like Hillary, because at least with her, there's not really the pretense that she's going to introduce shocking new changes that will save the world. She's just going to try to dig y'all out of a hole, but not also build a new mountain to live on. Obama is either deluded into thinking that he'll actually have the clout to do anything significant, or else he's just capitalizing on his youth. either way, i don't expect immediate change after the election. The way America's political system works, immediate change is pretty much impossible.

[wiggin]

what's wrong with John McCain? I mean, were I american, I"d probably be a democrat, but looking at John MCCain, and listening to him he seems very realistic and actually fairly intelligent. He seems rather likeable, actually, with fairly solid ideals and has a good head on his shoulders. Everyone here talks about how crazy he is, but I don't see it. Every now and then when he talks about the war his ideas might sound a little off, but when he explains what he means (like the whole 100 years in Iraq comment, where he was basically saying that Iraq would/should become like a colony in all but name for 100 years, with a steady, but not "Active" US Military presence) it really looks like he's thought about what he's saying and isn't saying it just to be popular.

I have reservations about his integrity. He threw away many of his positions from the 2000 race and pandered to a conservative base. I still wouldn't be terribly upset if he won, though, as I have reservations about Obama and Hillary as well. He also has made some pretty big gaffes - not showing a nuanced understanding of political Islam, for one - but that again does not distinguish him greatly from the other two main candidates. I'm seriously conflicted on how I will vote in November, even though I'm normally pretty leftist in my choices.

Though I do believe that there should be spending caps on elections. Because the system seems to work like this: the richest man (or person most accomplished in fundraising) wins. That's not right.

Obama proved you didn't need PAC or corporate money to succeed at fundraising; even the fundraising process can be quite democratic. It's not a perfect system, no, but it's sure better than the government funding the campaigns or some other silliness. Reasonable or not, presidential campaigns in a media-savvy country of 300 million people can be expensive.

Am I the only one who realizes that the ONLY part of that description that doesn't still fit Obama is white? In which case, I really don't think thats a good enough reason to vote for someone. Just like I think the only thing that makes Hillary stand out from that description is that she's not a man. Another reason not good enough to make her my president.

Obama is most certainly not rich or old, either. While he certainly is a politician, his appeal is that he seems rather more genuine and less of a panderer than his other two opponents. He generally doesn't talk down to his voters (though this is of course not always true).

And, McCain's comment. RIGHT! Make them like a colony and make a country do what we want them to for 100 years. Make them have a democracy they may not want encourage a religion I can garuntee most of them don't want and no doubt spend MORE of our money (that we don't have) to keep things in order over there. Order as in..American order. Doesn't that entail doing the things our founding father's got sick of and thus left to escape from? Hey! Isn't that kind of what's been done to Ireland? "Heeeey, Poor Guy! We'll come help you! We'll show you GREAT ways to do things. THEN, when you don't like our ways, we won't care! Welcome to the family, buddy! Settle in because we're not letting you go anywhere!"

It's obviously not ideal, but the US does have a responsibility to Iraq, and most Iraqis won't be too happy to see us leave without some sort of stability. Perhaps you shouldn't think of it as British colonialism, but as American bases in South Korea or Germany or even Japan. Obviously, McCain realizes that the current level of US combat involvement is not sustainable for a century, but he was making a reasonable point about a non-crazy middle course between 'staying the course' blindly without an exit strategy, and with leaving Iraq suddenly and watching it fall to pieces. I don't know if it's the ideal solution, but it isn't that off-base.

Anyway, Ron Paul did not get much share of coverage at all. But, lets face it, that's because he wasn't who half the people at the big news networks will be voting for. So why should they let anyone else vote for him?

For a nut, he got plenty of coverage. The more cogent criticisms are about the media's handling of Guiliani (and to a lesser extent, Huckabee).

Ender

[jabbernaut]

what's wrong with John McCain?

I didn't mean to imply there's anything WRONG with McCain... I just wish (and believe) that my party could have come up with someone better. He just seems like a comfortable choice, in that "more of the same" sort of way, who rode his name recognition into the nomination. I don't dispute him on his politics, and I'm happy to know he's more of a centrist than many of his colleagues... I just don't imagine 4 to 8 years of McCain as president being a time of momentous change for the better. He doesn't insight my passions to that end.

But who knows, he may surprise me. I'll probably like him more as a single candidate than I did during the primary when there were many other good choices in the running.

Plus, I'm always a little leery of electing people from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch, seeing as how they're already a cog in the broken federal machine. I tend to lean more toward governors. But McCain has proven to be quite a spitfire of a Senator who can transcend party lines (the Gang of 14, anyone?), so who knows... again, he may prove to be a great choice.

[Apoc]

Heh, Ron Paul is a loon.

Really? From what i've seen...

McCain is a nutcase and has temperament problems.

Hillary is an absolute liar and a corporations puppet.

Obama just says what people want to hear and doesn't seem to actually stand in the face of any controversial issues.

Ron Paul however, I pretty much agree with his views far more than the others. I don't see anything to indicate he's a loon from his views on the issues here - ron pauls views. yeah they may be radical changes but i think they make sense and I think they're needed...i seriously think america, and britain also, needs massive changes...pretty much we're fucked if we remain on the course we're on...and i thought ron paul was the best chance in the states to actually try change stuff.

Are you aware that he is against taxes, public education, and health care?

Taxes?

Debt and Taxes

“The people know much better how to spend their money than the government”

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

No Taxes on Tips
“It is an outrage that waiters, waitresses, and other service-sector employees have to pay taxes on the tips they earn.”

The IRS makes an estimate on how much service-sector workers will make in tips, and taxes them on it even if the taxpayer did not actually earn as much as the IRS' estimate!

Tips provide a substantial portion of the income of many service-sector employees, many of whom are young people just trying to make a few extra dollars to get through school, or single parents often balancing two jobs while trying to make enough to raise a family. This tax amounts to nothing more than the federal government punishing these employees for working hard and doing their jobs well.

I have introduced H.R. 3664 in Congress to end this problem. The Tax Free Tips Act of 2007 will exempt tips from federal income and payroll taxes. Ending taxes on tips will give workers an immediate pay raise, letting them keep more money to put toward things like a house or car payment, their retirement, or their own and/or their children's education.

When you give someone a tip, you should not have to simultaneously tip the federal government.

The Inflation tax

Today, the federal government burdens us with one of the most dangerous taxes it can impose — the inflation tax. When the federal government finds that it cannot afford its out-of-control spending, and is unwilling to directly tax the public, it resorts simply to creating the money out of thin air.

Inflating the money supply is the easiest form of financing the government. The Federal Reserve, an unelected and unaccountable private organization, pumps more dollars into the economy whenever it chooses. Because the public is forced to accept these bills, the Fed essentially gets away with legally counterfeiting. We cannot possibly expect the government to control spending when it has a blank checkbook.

This greatly benefits the politicians and special interests — they are able to finance the massive welfare-warfare state. But how does this inflation affect you?

Basic economics tells us that the more there is of a good, the less valuable it becomes. This is also true of money. The dollar is worth four cents of what it was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

Day by day, every dollar you have is being devalued. You pay an inflation tax without even realizing it because you are forced by a falling dollar to pay more for goods and services.

The disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation, are some of the greatest threats facing our nation today. It is this one-two punch — Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Treasury printing money to make up the difference — that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.

By legalizing competing currencies, we can end the Federal Reserve’s stranglehold on our money supply and begin to restore value to the dollar. But Congress will continue to spend extravagantly until we the people make our views known at the ballot box.

Public education?

Education
The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.

Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.

I have also introduced legislation to help families cope with the out-of-control costs of higher education. H.R. 193, the Make College Affordable Act, creates a full tax deduction for undergraduate college tuition, reasonable living expenses, and interest on qualified student loans.

Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.

Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.

Home Schooling
My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children’s education.

I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment.

We must have permanency in the Department of Defense Home School Tier 1 Pilot Program, providing recruitment status parity for home school graduates. I will use my authority to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation.

[Apoc]

health care?

health Care
The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster.

Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines. Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. Thanks to government interference in the health care market, many Americans, including the unemployed and those who work for small businesses, cannot afford health insurance. This causes the uninsured to seek basic medical care at already overcrowded emergency rooms, further driving up health care costs and causing premiums to rise for those with insurance.

The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.

Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.

Health Freedom
Americans are justifiably concerned over the government’s escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.

I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.

I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements.

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

~shrugs~

[sir archely]

yeah, see, the problem with putting spending/health care/etc. in the hands of the people is that people are idiots.


as a side note, the tips bill alone is clear evidence that Ron Paul is a loon. at least, that's not really how the IRS taxes tipped employees.

[Anita Blake]

yeah, wow. i'd say from looking at his own words, that he's a dangerous ninny. He doesn't seem to realize that without government intervention in things like health care and education, the costs for these things would skyrocket while the business owners tried to make as much money as possible, and the average citizen would be left unable to afford them. The tax breaks afforded them wouldn't mean much, because their taxes would already be so low.

arch is right. people are pretty much stupid. eradicating a free education would not help that problem at all.

That guy is so far right he's thinks the middle-right is as far left as you can go. Yowza. the things he proposes seem like they would cause absolute chaos. It's like he wants to go back to the Wild West - every man for himself, total lawlessness.

nope, apoc, you're crazy. but we already knew that, so that's ok.

(of course this comes from the girl who went to Cuba and decided that the way things are being run there are actually really, really good. free milk for children, 100% literacy, 0% homelessness, no beggars, equal opportunities for all children for cultural enhancement like ballet classes, no crime. You know, for the cost of greatly reduced material wealth for all, and lack of political dissent, I'd say it's worth it.)