Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

  • News
  • Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date
In summary, Ron Paul's candidacy is not receiving much media attention despite his views on various issues. Many believe he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination and would not support him. However, some admire his consistency and principles, even though they may not align with his economic ideologies. The media's marginalization of Paul may be a factor in his lack of popularity, but it is unlikely that he will become a leading contender at this point.
  • #316
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) he will end up being a spoiler that will squander a GOP majority in the House. The "coattail" idea is simplistic, but the truth is that if your party is not enthused about the people at the top of the ticket, they might not flock to the polls, losing votes for your party-mates down-ticket.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #317
turbo said:
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ...
Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.
 
  • #318
ThomasT said:
I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. ...
Have you spent any time investigating the history?
 
  • #319
mheslep said:
Please show where Paul gets a significant share of his money from Cato/Koch, if any.
Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it. He's the closest thing to a Libertarian that they have, so where do you think they will spend their money or steer their donors? Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.
 
  • #320
Evo said:
People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.
Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.
 
  • #321
turbo said:
Thanks to Citizens United, that cannot be done, and I think you know it.
CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.

Our elections are now dirtier and less-transparent than ever, and will continue to subvert the will of the citizens until CU is overturned.
What do you care, with Obama's billion dollar campaign fund and not a word about it? Not a word about his blowing to pieces his public financing pledge in 2008.
 
  • #322
mheslep said:
Yep, but they are not entitled to receive several times what they paid in.
Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.
 
  • #323
mheslep said:
CU has nothing to do with notification. I think you should retract what you invented and stated as fact.
The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.
 
  • #324
turbo said:
Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.
I'm referring mainly to Medicare, the 3:1 to 5:1 payout has been discussed in other threads.
http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/310667_Straight36.pdf Figure 2.
 
  • #325
turbo said:
The fact is that CU allows corporate entities to make unlimited ad-buys without ever having to disclose the identities of the donors. I won't retract fact. And please stop calling me a liar.
You stated:
If Paul has enough money to stay in it (think Cato/Koch brothers, etc) ...
without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?
 
  • #326
turbo said:
Have you heard of compound interest and inflation? I started paying into SS in the early 60's. If I could only get dollar-for-dollar benefits without interest and inflation being considered, I'd be pretty ticked. That's not what I paid in for.
Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.
 
  • #327
Evo said:

Wow it's almost like Daily Show deja vu. #1 and #2 pictured prominently while #4 and #5 get video spots. Well, at least Ron Paul got a few lukewarm sentences and a link to a silly article about a twitter joke down at the bottom.

BTW, here's a Q&A article on him. http://news.yahoo.com/q-ron-paul-iowas-third-place-finisher-081000162.html

In it, Paul says:

"I'm super-confident in the message. Of course, I know my own shortcomings in the way I deliver messages, but I think it's the message that makes America great.
What do you mean by shortcomings?
I never use notes. I'm spontaneous and I'm more effective that way. And sometimes they'll say, 'Well, he sort of jumps around.' And I say, well I should jump around. But I survive it all. The message always come through. Today we talked to the high school kids, and it's the same message when I talk to the retired people."


-----------------------------------------------------------
I like that he's honest about what I see as a key weakness. He doesn't deliver the message well enough in playing the campaign game. Romney comes off as polished, well-groomed and well-coached with what I'd assume is a top-notch staff. Paul comes off as a jumpy loon in comparison (though more genuine as well). Perhaps he just needs the right consultant or adviser to give him that needed balance of polished electability with his honest conviction. It seems like much of politics is down to packaged marketing.
 
  • #328
mheslep said:
You stated:
without caveat or an IMO. I'm not interested in tangents about CU. Its very simple. You either i) know Cato/Koch fund Paul via a source, or ii) have an opinion that they do and stated it here as fact. Which?

I don't see how that's fact. If I stated something like this:

If mheslep has enough support to stay in it (think Evo, Micromass, etc.)

That's not stating that you are receiving support from those two users. That simply says "think about people like that". Of course, in this case, I just pulled random names out of my "last people remembered" list.
 
  • #329
Jimmy Snyder said:
Private pensions pay interest, but they do not pay for inflation. Yet people buy them without getting ticked at them.
Private pension-plans EARN interest, if they are invested properly. Determined-benefit plans (my wife and I each have one from previous employers) have to buy financial instruments. Such pensions are designed to provide adequate benefits to the beneficiaries (yes, even with projected inflation rolled in) but they are not designed to deal with criminal behavior on the part of the banks issuing the "investments" that are supposed to keep the funds healthy.
 
  • #330
Yes Ron Paul has many radical ideas which I don't agree with, but it's funny how people think that the other candidates are more moderate. Continuing with the same foreign policy and with the gigantic military spending, for example, in my opinion is a radical idea, and the other republican candidates support this.

The policies on drugs are also ridiculous, and they mean a lot of unnecessary government spending.

And the debt is just monstrous, any serious candidate should now be talking on how to reduce the debt.

Ron Paul addresses these problems, and the other candidates just don't seem to care. Yes he has many radical ideas, but don't forget that a president can't pass anything he wants, so I think he'd do more good than bad as a president (unlike the others, who will definitely do more bad than good).

What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate, and that he never will the elections so the media shouldn't mention him. First of all that isn't democratic at all, every candidate should be respected independent on how he's running and his ideas. And second, then why does the media pay attention to Bachman and Gingrich? Ron Paul has more chances than them, so why doesn't the media pay more attention to Ron Paul than them? Hypocrisy at its finest...
 
Last edited:
  • #331
Paul humor.

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #332
mheslep said:
Paul humor.

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg [Broken]
LOl.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #333
Tosh5457 said:
... What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate ...
I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).
 
  • #334
ThomasT said:
I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).
Only Santorum is scarier. IMO. But, yeah, even the republicans don't like the line up, 58% polled don't want any of them.
 
  • #335
I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.
 
  • #336
Evo said:
Only Santorum is scarier. IMO.
I agree that Santorum is worse. And so, apparently, do most Americans ... at least for the time being.

And, while not particularly desirable, imo, a Ron Paul presidency would at least be interesting. Whereas a, say, Mitt Romney presidency would be pretty boring, ie., just more of the same business as usual, imho.
 
  • #337
turbo said:
I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.
I basically agree with this assessment. It's "a good thing" only in the sense that Obama has established, imo, that he's not going to do any great harm ... but then he isn't really advocating, or making happen, changes that I think would significantly improve the lives of average Americans. (Of course, it can be argued that that's mostly due to the intransigence of the GOP dominated congress, which is a topic for another thread.)
 
  • #338
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.
 
  • #339
Evo said:
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide.
Well, that's an empirical question that can only be definitively answered if America was to implement Paul's isolationist ideas.

Evo said:
Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.IMO.
But it could be argued that the people who are in positions to do anything about international politics are tools of the status quo. So, it's wrt that consideration that I would consider a Ron Paul presidency to be ... interesting.
 
  • #340
Evo said:
The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.
 
  • #341
Tosh5457 said:
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.
 
  • #342
MarcoD said:
Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #343
Tosh5457 said:
The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.

Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.

The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.

(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #344
do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA?

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?
 
  • #345
MarcoD said:
I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.
The nuts that promoted these wars are very fond of presenting false dichotomies. There is no international/foreign relations issue that has "two sides", and it's high time that somebody in the press mans up and explains that - loudly and over and over again. Politicians are professional liars, and if they can get enough of the public to get behind them, they can do tremendous damage with such simplistic claims.
 
  • #346
MarcoD said:
Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.

The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.

(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)

Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there...

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

So just to make sure they don't get attacked again, US should stay on the Middle East forever?

USA's foreign policy is completely nuts. The military spending is monstrous, especially when US has so much debt. The question is not if US should cut on military spending or not, the question is how much they should cut. And to make those cuts the mentality about foreign policy has to change... USA are in NATO, they're allies with Europe... They don't need a fraction of the military they currently have.
 
Last edited:
  • #347
Tosh5457 said:
Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.
Your sarcasm is noted and well taken, imo. But, imo, the best foreign policy will be something between Bush-Cheney and Ron Paul. Not that Paul's strict isolationist ideas would necessarily be implemented if he were to be elected, but the prospect of it is enough for me to not vote for him. No country can afford to be isolationist, except maybe Monaco as long as they keep the dice rolling.
 
  • #348
does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?
 
  • #349
mathwonk said:
does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?

You should have read her paper on "The topological implications of The bridge To Nowhere". If that doesn't win her a Fields medal, then I don't know what will.
 
  • #350
Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.
 
<h2>1. What are Ron Paul's main political beliefs?</h2><p>Ron Paul is known for his libertarian and conservative views. He believes in limited government intervention, individual liberty, and free market economics.</p><h2>2. How does Ron Paul differ from other candidates?</h2><p>Ron Paul stands out from other candidates because of his consistent beliefs and voting record. He has been a vocal advocate for limited government and individual freedoms throughout his political career.</p><h2>3. What are some criticisms of Ron Paul's candidacy?</h2><p>Some criticisms of Ron Paul include his foreign policy stance, which is often seen as isolationist, and his controversial statements on issues such as race and LGBTQ+ rights.</p><h2>4. What are some notable accomplishments of Ron Paul's political career?</h2><p>Ron Paul has served in Congress for over 20 years and has been a vocal advocate for limited government and individual freedoms. He has also been a consistent critic of government spending and the Federal Reserve.</p><h2>5. What are the chances of Ron Paul winning the election?</h2><p>As of now, Ron Paul is not running for the upcoming election. However, in his previous presidential campaigns, he did not win the nomination of either major party. It is difficult to predict his chances in a future election, but he has a dedicated base of supporters who continue to promote his ideas and principles.</p>

1. What are Ron Paul's main political beliefs?

Ron Paul is known for his libertarian and conservative views. He believes in limited government intervention, individual liberty, and free market economics.

2. How does Ron Paul differ from other candidates?

Ron Paul stands out from other candidates because of his consistent beliefs and voting record. He has been a vocal advocate for limited government and individual freedoms throughout his political career.

3. What are some criticisms of Ron Paul's candidacy?

Some criticisms of Ron Paul include his foreign policy stance, which is often seen as isolationist, and his controversial statements on issues such as race and LGBTQ+ rights.

4. What are some notable accomplishments of Ron Paul's political career?

Ron Paul has served in Congress for over 20 years and has been a vocal advocate for limited government and individual freedoms. He has also been a consistent critic of government spending and the Federal Reserve.

5. What are the chances of Ron Paul winning the election?

As of now, Ron Paul is not running for the upcoming election. However, in his previous presidential campaigns, he did not win the nomination of either major party. It is difficult to predict his chances in a future election, but he has a dedicated base of supporters who continue to promote his ideas and principles.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
22
Replies
735
Views
64K
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
176
Views
26K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
85
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
671
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
865
Back
Top