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

[Dotini]

Uhm, yeah.

I'm glad you partly agree!

If we were electing the Scientist-in-Chief it would be another matter. But evolution, abortion and drugs pale in significance to war and debt. Remember, if you are fighting and broke, you are going nowhere fast.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[Evo]

I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.

Conspiracy theory? You know that's against the rules.

I'm glad you partly agree!

Lol, I was being dismissive. But you know that.

 

[ThomasT]

... media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.

This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no more so than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?

 

[Freye]

This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no more so than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

 

[Evo]

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution

Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

see my previous post on this

And for more on Ron Paul's religious views

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Ron+Paul+religious+quotes

 

[ThomasT]

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

That's how I thought about Paul for a while. But my opinion of Paul changed a bit when I went to a website that had all the candidates positions on various issues (from debates, speeches, interviews, etc.) going back a few years. It seems, from what I read, that his judgement is somewhat tainted by his theistic religious views, in line with what Evo posted in reply to you.

But I'm still curious as to the real reason why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul. Which one(s) of his positions is (are) the deal breaker(s)?

 

[DoggerDan]

I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state. A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.

Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.

 

[Freye]

He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution see my previous post on this

Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

 

[turbo]

well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.

The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.

 

[Proton Soup]

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

looks like the source of a lot of this is articles at lewrockwell. and of the couple that I've perused, it's a little different from your characterization. they're more of the standard libertarian views of the federal government exceeding its constitutional mandate.

 

[Proton Soup]

The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.

so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?

 

[turbo]

so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?

How does Ron look in a short skirt?

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

 

[Freye]

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

Proton Soup is right; although he is clearly pro-christian, his point is that he wants the state to tolerate and accept religion, instead of being what he sees as "hostile" towards it. He may be a nut when it comes to religion, but he's a libertarian, and that means he's strongly against using the government to promote an agenda. So no, he would not "want to change the government to fulfil his religious beliefs."

 

[Evo]

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

 

[ThomasT]

I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state.

If we vote enough religious fundamentalists into public office, then maybe they won't be practicing what the constitution preaches, even though of course they'll say that they are.

A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.

People have the right to base their beliefs and judgements on theistic religious doctrine, but not, imo, as public officials. Basing judgements regarding public policy on religious beliefs betrays the sort of willful ignorance that prompts me to screen out of consideration such candidates.

Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.

How do we judge the success or failure of a president's term of office? Was Bush a good president? Can we point to at least of couple of considerations where his judgement was apparently based on his theistic religious orientation? How about various religious governors and state and national congress persons? We've got lots of silly laws and public practices based on New and Old Testament doctrines.

For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.

 

[phinds]

... For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.

Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts which is really saying something.

 

[chiro]

The one thing I like about Ron Paul (among other things) is consistency and specificity.

The consistency comes from the fact that he sticks to his principles. He does not change his stance to match the flavor of the month, and that gets a lot of respect for me. This character trait shows that he walks his talk: it takes a real person to take a stand and stand up for what the believe in especially in the midst of any kind of negative response which he was endured a lot.

The specificity is something that separates him from his contenders. When he states his view and responds to questions or ridicule whether it be in the form of a debate, or some other event like an interview on TV or radio, he actually gives specific information to support his argument. When he is either asked nicely or challenged, he delves into various data to support his argument which spans topics from history to economics.

One other thing I like is the view he promotes of letting people have the right to say what they want and to practice lifestyles that do not hurt other people in the way that they want to. One important facet of free speech for example is to let anyone voice their views no matter how insane you may think they are. You can't make exceptions and remain unhypocritical. The fact that some groups want some things to be completely taboo, while having other things being acceptable is completely hypocritical, ignorant, and generally stupid: if you want what the constitutions regards as free speech, then you need to respect everyone's right for that no matter how inane or ridiculous that speech is. This demonstrates that he is really serious about his stance about being a constitutionalist and not changing his stance just to be politically correct.

With regard to him being covered and whether that implies anything about how good a candidate he is, make up your own damn mind. If you use the TV as a basis for making the majority of your life decisions, then IMO you need to broaden your sources for information and exercise more critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts ...

Yes, from the poll data that I've seen this seems to be true.

... which is really saying something.

It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.

This is understandable in that it's (from what I've read, and in my personal experience) more acceptable to say that you're Christian than that you believe in ghosts.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want, for whatever reasons. But that doesn't make what they believe right, especially if their beliefs are based on socialization and intellectual and emotional comfort (which is the basis of willful ignorance) rather than modern standards of rationality and critical thinking.

Ron Paul seems to be a man of integrity, and intelligent and knowledgeable in many areas. However, I don't want to vote for a candidate who I think might base an important public decision on his/her religious orientation, regardless of what most Americans say they believe.

 

[DuncanM]

So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?

No, I don't think he'll win.

However, I do like the fact he is a libertarian, and he has proposed some drastic measures for dealing with the economy. Many of these drastic measures have gotten him the "zany" label but drastic measures are exactly what are necessary. The establishment needs a shake-up. (Isn't that how America was founded in the first place?)

Seriously, everybody else is pretty much same old same old. They are all afraid to state that drastic measures are required. And anybody who does is automatically disqualified as being "zany". This ensures that the right thing will never be done:

The right thing to do is "Policy A".
Focus all media attention on politicians who promote any policy except "Policy A".
Label anybody who promotes "Policy A" a nutty fruitcake.
Ensure that "Policy A" is never implemented and policies that created the mess in the first place continue like business as usual. Or until the country declares bankruptcy.

Let's be honest: even if Ron Paul is not the right person, things cannot go on in the same manner. Like Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different outcomes.

 

[phinds]

It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

 

[Proton Soup]

How does Ron look in a short skirt?

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

i expect he has chicken legs.

whatever happened to Ross Perot?

 

[Galteeth]

Honestly, the hardest thing last time around was getting all the younger supporters to register in time for the primary. I think Ron Paul does have a constituency, however one that is definitely not in the majority. One thing is that Paul polls better in a general election against Obama then he does in the republican primary. A lot of the GOP primary voters are pretty authoritarian.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...n_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

(The poll for the republican primaries had Perry at 29%, Romney at 17%, Paul at 13%, Bachmann at 10%)There is a dedicated group of supporters, and this they are very motivated. The grass roots organizing is good. I think it is a mischaracterization to say it is meant to give the impression of larger numbers. Especially in 2007, it was impossible to get any media attention. Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."

Also, it really was all grassroots. I remember standing in times square on I think it was new year's. There were also groups of Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. One of the younger Obama guys came up and asked how much Ron Paul was paying us. I thought it was a joke, but apparently some of the guys in that group were getting payed for being there holding up signs.(This was in the background of a news broadcast.) I explained nobody here was getting payed and he was really shocked.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes.

 

[Galteeth]

I didn't realize that they now teach about ghosts and UFOs in science classes.

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

EDIT: And to tie this back to Ron Paul, yes, there are a disproportionate amount of (illlogical) conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

Not to nitpick, but I wasn't the one who made the overly general reference to UFOs and ghosts.

If by ghost people mean the souls of the dead, then this is generally linked to religious or similar beliefs. If one believes in an afterlife, ghosts are just one step away.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Honestly there was sort of this impression "If people just heard about Ron Paul they would see what he's saying makes sense."

Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.

 

[Galteeth]

Paul has been running in Presidential campaigns since 1988. The mistake is in thinking there is something new here.

This reminds of the old saying that every generation thinks they invented sex. Like Amway, Paul just keeps coming around.

As far as impact, 1988 and 2007 were very different. Paul didn't spark a popular grassroots movement in 1988 or become a household name. Different time, different situation. Also different mediums of communication. The internet has made a huge difference in terms of how ideas are able to propagate without support from corporate media.

 

[phinds]

Well, I don't see what's illogical about believing in UFOs. A UFO is simply an "unidentified flying object." I certainly believe that not every single flying object ever was identified. I think what you mean is that people believe in UFOs of alien origin. Not to nitpick, but we should be careful about using a term incorrectly to point out people's ignorance.

Actually, I don't think you are nitpicking at all, I think you have made a perfectly legitimate point and I WAS sloppy in my use of terminology. You DO, obviously, understand my intent correctly, but I thank you for pointing out my error. It's the belief in little green men that gets my hackles up.

 

[ThomasT]

Right, but I think you're missing my fundamentat point there which is that the number of people in America who believe in ghosts and UFOs is ASTOUNDING. It's as though we don't teach science in our schools any more.

I think that most US high school students get a very insignificant exposure to science and critical thinking. It's sort of always been that way. You've got the minority who get that stuff at home, or who are intellectually gifted, who get into it. But most kids leave high school pretty ignorant and intellectually unprepared I think. And, not so astoundingly, they become ignorant adults wrt science and modern rational methods of inquiry and critical thinking.