Why Democrats should be voting for Ron Paul

[acidhead]

Reform is badly needed. However at time it sounds like instead of fixing a leaky roof Paul wants to destroy the whole house. Too much reform can be just as bad as not enough.

And the turning comment was more due to the fact that some people (many who support Paul) seem to be anti-whoever happened to be in charge at the moment. They raise Paul up to be this great hero but I don't see him putting though the massive sweeping changes he's promised as quickly and as painlessly as some believe. When reality sets in those who saw him as a hero will lable him a villain.

You say he wants to destroy the house?

The leaking roof needs a new roof.... not patch work!!!! ...... treating the symptoms and failing to treat the actual disease is what's been happening for way too long............ DUH!!!!

[arglebargle]

Ron Paul would still be a better alternative than another round of Obama I think. He clearly doesn't think of himself as a progressive, and gives the conservatives more than they could ever have hoped for with a republican president. So by voting Obama again you're essentially voting further right than right.

At least Ron claims to wish to stop the wars and the fed and a couple of other points I sort of like the sound of. Then again he wants to slash most if not all entitlement spending and return to a kind of wild-west scenario which I really do not approve of. For those who agree with me and Strangelove in that a two party system is directly sad,I recommend having a quick look at my forum signature. Two voting models which would make it easier to elect third parties, etc. Removing the spoiler effects - it's not problem free, it's essentially the system you already have in place, except it solves one additional problem - the spoiler effect.

Instead of one vote, you instead set up a priority system where you rank the parties you want in power. So if you really want party x to win, you rank party x with a "1" and if you don't want party Y at all, you leave that field blank, but if you're willing to compromise and set up a backup vote for party Z then you rank party Z as "2" and so on. It's called "instant runoff voting" and is - in my opinion - a very good system compared to what's currently in place. It could be put into effect right now. So yeah, if you're interested, check my sig on this. :>

[supervike]

On a more serious note though: I doubt that Ron can make the necessary changes in the current political climate of the US. If you're tired of the corruption in Washington, I recommend you occupy wall street on the 17. September: http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html It will be hard for politicians to ignore your voice when you're in their financial mecca

That is the problem. It's not our candidates that are poor, it's the political quagmire of the Swamp of DC.

[preacherman76]

Preach, nice article! Should re-title it though to "Why everybody should be voting for Ron Paul".

I was thinking it was like a extended hand, trying to unclench a fist.

[WoIverine]

I was thinking it was like a extended hand, trying to unclench a fist.

Ahh, I see what you mean, excellent point. We could certainly use more diplomacy these days.

[el midgetron]

He also said at one point that he wanted to end the income tax, but gave no plan on how to replace the income.

End the fed. Abraham Lincoln funded the civil war with the green back, back when the green backs were backed. We don't need to borrow money from the "Fed" at interest. We already pay plenty of taxes without the income tax. The federal reserve is a cancer on the United States.

I believe his plan deals with creating competitive currencies to the federal reserve note. I'll admit I can't outline the details.

[The Silver Thong]

End the fed. Abraham Lincoln funded the civil war with the green back, back when the green backs were backed. We don't need to borrow money from the "Fed" at interest. We already pay plenty of taxes without the income tax. The federal reserve is a cancer on the United States.

I believe his plan deals with creating competitive currencies to the federal reserve note. I'll admit I can't outline the details.

Rp is the closest you guys have to a third party and yes the fedral reserve does need to be challanged.

[MissMelsWell]

Let's see - he believes that abortion should be made illegal, he voted against Net Neutrality and he's opposed to Universal healthcare.

Not exactly Democratic ticket material.

This is part of why Ron Paul probably won't get my vote. I'm passionately on the other side of the fence from him on those issues. Yet I'm FOR him on issues like disbanding the TSA and DHS and bringing all troops back to the US. He's managed to hit on all of my passionate issues, some for, some against. I'm afraid for the issues that he's against... so much so, that I'm not sure I can vote for him. I have a very love hate thing for Ron Paul. And, honestly, I doubt he'll ever get the Republican nomination... he's not really a republican, he's just registered as one. he's actually a Libritarian.

[preacherman76]

This is part of why Ron Paul probably won't get my vote. I'm passionately on the other side of the fence from him on those issues. Yet I'm FOR him on issues like disbanding the TSA and DHS and bringing all troops back to the US. He's managed to hit on all of my passionate issues, some for, some against. I'm afraid for the issues that he's against... so much so, that I'm not sure I can vote for him. I have a very love hate thing for Ron Paul. And, honestly, I doubt he'll ever get the Republican nomination... he's not really a republican, he's just registered as one. he's actually a Libritarian.

I understand that folks cant agree with him on some issues. If you asked me why I thought you should vote for him, Id have to ask you what is most important to you. I would think disbanning tyrannical government programs, and a end to war, meaning of course peace, should be top priority. Especialy considering the fact that if he isnt elected, these things will most certainly go on for a long time to come.

[WoIverine]

Was flipping through the news channels this morning, it was all about Romney vs. Perry. Not once did I hear the name Ron Paul. My God people are so stupidly deceived by the establishment. I sure as hell hope we don't have 4 more years of corruption and out of control spending. If Ron wants to do this and straighten things out, he's got to act now, spend some money, get some PR firms, get as much air time as possible. Obama practially bought the presidency. RP has to start moving now.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[Corp]

Daily Show did a bit on that last night, how the various news channels seem to be refusing to admit that Ron Paul exists.

[Tiggs]

I understand that folks cant agree with him on some issues. If you asked me why I thought you should vote for him, Id have to ask you what is most important to you. I would think disbanning tyrannical government programs, and a end to war, meaning of course peace, should be top priority. Especialy considering the fact that if he isnt elected, these things will most certainly go on for a long time to come.

Truth is, pulling out of a war in a structured way is a lot harder than starting one. For example, It'll be the end of this year before Obama finally manages to get all of the troops home from Iraq.

Outlawing abortion is an absolute dealbreaker for Democrats. It's also something that Ron Paul is very passionate about. Pretty much that simple.

Was flipping through the news channels this morning, it was all about Romney vs. Perry. Not once did I hear the name Ron Paul. My God people are so stupidly deceived by the establishment. I sure as hell hope we don't have 4 more years of corruption and out of control spending. If Ron wants to do this and straighten things out, he's got to act now, spend some money, get some PR firms, get as much air time as possible. Obama practially bought the presidency. RP has to start moving now.

Ron Paul is unelectable.

His stance on abortion forces him to side with the Republican party. His views on defence mean that he'll never be selected as the Republican candidate.

Even though he makes a lot of sense on other issues, those two hot button viewpoints ensure that he'll never be elected.

[acidhead]

Truth is, pulling out of a war in a structured way is a lot harder than starting one. For example, It'll be the end of this year before Obama finally manages to get all of the troops home from Iraq.

Outlawing abortion is an absolute dealbreaker for Democrats. It's also something that Ron Paul is very passionate about. Pretty much that simple.

Ron Paul is unelectable.

His stance on abortion forces him to side with the Republican party. His views on defence mean that he'll never be selected as the Republican candidate.

Even though he makes a lot of sense on other issues, those two hot button viewpoints ensure that he'll never be elected.

In Ron Paul's words, "We just marched into Iraq and we can simply march out". People who have clung to the idea that the military cannot simply leave get their opinion generated from talking heads on the corporate media. You've been led to believe that the only alternative is a gradual pullout. The truth is there is a monsterous permanent american military base there now which will station over 17 000 american soldiers and personel who will have there official positions or titles changed from their current status to that of 'diplomats'. This is hardly any 'change' in 'pulling all the troops from Iraq' like Obama promised to eager voters who were tired of the same old BS from Bush's Republican policies. In fact it looks very obvious that the D's are following the exact same policy that the R's would have used.

Again, suggesting Ron Paul is 'unelectable' is another MSM talking point. Polls suggest other wise. Think for your self... don't allow the media to form an 'ignorant of the facts' opinion for you.

Ron Paul's stance on abortion is his own personal opinion, based on two motivating factors:

1. his experience specifically trained in obstetrics and gynecology where he personally delivered over 4000 babies in his own private firm.

2. The US Constitution

His views on defence is exactly the reason both the D's and the R's are running scared of him. Both party's have vested interest in the military industrial complex. Both party's refuse to engage in defence related debates.

Edited August 16, 2011 by acidhead

[WoIverine]

In Ron Paul's words, "We just marched into Iraq and we can simply march out". People who have clung to the idea that the military cannot simply leave get their opinion generated from talking heads on the corporate media. You've been led to believe that the only alternative is a gradual pullout. The truth is there is a monsterous permanent american military base there now which will station over 17 000 american soldiers and personel who will have there official positions or titles changed from their current status to that of 'diplomats'. This is hardly any 'change' in 'pulling all the troops from Iraq' like Obama promised to eager voters who were tired of the same old BS from Bush's Republican policies. In fact it looks very obvious that the D's are following the exact same policy that the R's would have used.

Again, suggesting Ron Paul is 'unelectable' is another MSM talking point. Polls suggest other wise. Think for your self... don't allow the media to form an 'ignorant of the facts' opinion for you.

Ron Paul's stance on abortion is his own personal opinion, based on two motivating factors:

1. his experience specifically trained in obstetrics and gynecology where he personally delivered over 4000 babies in his own private firm.

2. The US Constitution

His views on defence is exactly the reason both the D's and the R's are running scared of him. Both party's have vested interest in the military industrial complex. Both party's refuse to engage in defence related debates.

Couldn't agree more. If anyone other than Paul get's elected, look for them to have even less of an approval rating than Obama, and W ever had. The government has been hijacked by the corrupt. I would honestly think that Democrats would back a Ron Paul nomination even more than ANY of the other republican candidates, especially Romney, and Bush on Steroids Perry.

(Not directed towards you Acidhead) As for the abortion stance, who the hell cares, be responsible and put a damned condom on, FFS!

Edited August 16, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[acidhead]

Couldn't agree more. If anyone other than Paul get's elected, look for them to have even less of an approval rating than Obama, and W ever had. The government has been hijacked by the corrupt. I would honestly think that Democrats would back a Ron Paul nomination even more than ANY of the other republican candidates, especially Romney, and Bush on Steroids Perry. As for the abortion stance, who the hell cares, be responsible and put a goddamned condom on, FFS!

I predict the establishment(the corporate controlled fascist american government) will pick Perry and Sarah Palin will be his running mate. They've been hand picked for some time now. The media will decide how the democratic process presents it's candidates for the citizens to vote for. The illusion that the people pick their leaders is fantasy. It's amazing how many people, especially those with a cable television set in their house, allow the media to form their own opinions through political correctness techniques and fear. It's all theater.

[WoIverine]

I predict the establishment(the corporate controlled fascist american government) will pick Perry and Sarah Palin will be his running mate. They've been hand picked for some time now. The media will decide how the democratic process presents it's candidates for the citizens to vote for. The illusion that the people pick their leaders is fantasy. It's amazing how many people, especially those with a cable television set in their house, allow the media to form their own opinions through political correctness techniques and fear. It's all theater.

I think they do know their time is limited. Eventually the corruption will be weeded out by way of the current system, or by sweeping changes ala Ron Paul-esque methods. All dynasties eventually come to an end. Look how hard the figureheads work to maintain their illusion of control already.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[Tiggs]

In Ron Paul's words, "We just marched into Iraq and we can simply march out". People who have clung to the idea that the military cannot simply leave get their opinion generated from talking heads on the corporate media. You've been led to believe that the only alternative is a gradual pullout. The truth is there is a monsterous permanent american military base there now which will station over 17 000 american soldiers and personel who will have there official positions or titles changed from their current status to that of 'diplomats'. This is hardly any 'change' in 'pulling all the troops from Iraq' like Obama promised to eager voters who were tired of the same old BS from Bush's Republican policies. In fact it looks very obvious that the D's are following the exact same policy that the R's would have used.

They're following the same withdrawal plan because it makes no sense to withdraw earlier than the Iraq government is able to govern and enforce law on it's streets. Last time I checked, warfare had pretty much ceased.

Sure, you could have just pulled the troops out, but in doing so you'd have sparked an internal civil war. Ensuring that the country is stable before leaving is the responsible thing to do.

Again, suggesting Ron Paul is 'unelectable' is another MSM talking point. Polls suggest other wise. Think for your self... don't allow the media to form an 'ignorant of the facts' opinion for you.

Recent election results suggest otherwise, regardless of polls. Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason the MSM are saying that Ron Paul is unelectable...might just be because he is?

Ron Paul's stance on abortion is his own personal opinion, based on two motivating factors:

1. his experience specifically trained in obstetrics and gynecology where he personally delivered over 4000 babies in his own private firm.

2. The US Constitution

Contrary to popular opinion, the US Constituion is not holy scripture. It was a product of it's time and has been amended several times, and will be amended again.

Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe Vs Wade and hand over individual legislative authority on abortion to the individual states - at which point, whatever Ron Paul's personal stance on abortion is will no longer matter.

Once that happens, it's practically a certainty that there will be States that totally outlaw elective abortion - a truly nightmare scenario, in which women who find themselves in one of the states that rule abortion illegal will be stopped by Judges from crossing the state line to have an abortion and be forced against their will to give birth. Those women who are able to cross the state line to have an abortion will face murder charges on their return.

Short of outlawing guns - I can't think of a quicker way to start a civil war.

His views on defence is exactly the reason both the D's and the R's are running scared of him. Both party's have vested interest in the military industrial complex. Both party's refuse to engage in defence related debates.

So why is he running as a Republican Candidate, if the Republican's are scared of him? Why aren't the Democrats buying block airtime in order to attack Ron Paul?

Truth is - neither party are running scared of him, as neither party particularly believe that he's a viable Presidential candidate.

[Corp]

The two parties don't seem to be running scared. They just seem to be ignoring him.

[Damrod]

I like RP but it is true he has some views that are going to be hard for him to get past. I am...more or less...a Libertarian. I believe in small government, big freedom and the empowering of the states to handle citizen based issues and decisions...and consequently...there would be less double and triple redundancy at a federal level that creates a revenue sucking bureaucracy.

That being said...I do wholeheartedly believe in the need of some social programs. I believe in a public funded and driven educational system that...in the long run...prepares people to contribute to the public interest...call it symbiotic. I further believe there is a need for a state collected retirement system...but it needs to be overhauled and improved...the current system is not efficient and is subject to fraud and manipulation. Again this is a public service and that is what the Gov is supposed to be there for. People working crappy jobs to the advantage and service to others deserve something in their twilight years.

I do not believe in government subsidies to corporations. I do not think we should pay farmers "not to produce" for price fixation reasons...sell the excess. I do not believe we should be paying the oil industry crap...I think the second or third year of "record profits" should have been the time to slap them off the teet.

His abortion stance is...well...his opinion and should not be in his platform...trying to pass a law to restrict the "liberty" of another human being is spitting in the face of what "Libertarianism" stands for. I can appreciate what is moral position is, but it has no place in this debate.

His position on foreign countries nuclear ambition is actually not as "un-wise" as some of the talking heads like to say it is. They will eventually become armed (no matter what we attempt to do) and if we continuously hinder their prosperity internally out of our fear...when they acquire the capacity...guess who they are going to be gunning for...

His policy on drugs is blown way out of proportion...it goes directly back to his position on State power and authority...that basically the fed does not need to have billion dollar organizations to combat the "war on drugs" and that every state should make the decision for themselves and repeal any federal law that challenges a state's authority to govern themselves and their citizens. If a state wants to legalize maryjane...that should be up to the state...just like how states legalize gambling or the sale of high octane alcohol and beverages. it is not the place of the fed to be involved in these things...they are not threats to our borders, they are internal issues and should be controlled by the states and local municipalities.

Anyway...love him or hate him...we have to do something...our entrenched two party system have sold us out years ago and it's time for change...

Edited August 16, 2011 by Damrod

[preacherman76]

Truth is, pulling out of a war in a structured way is a lot harder than starting one. For example, It'll be the end of this year before Obama finally manages to get all of the troops home from Iraq.

Under establishment administrations, we will never ever leave Iraq. Its why we build multi billion dollar military bases.

When asked how he would end the wars, Dr Paul said "we marched them in, and we can march them right back out" You will Never leave a place like Afgan in a structured mannor.

Outlawing abortion is an absolute dealbreaker for Democrats. It's also something that Ron Paul is very passionate about. Pretty much that simple.

Ron Paul has no intention of outlawing abortion.

Edited August 16, 2011 by preacherman76

[farandaway]

Most democrats won't vote for him because of the cutting he would do to their beloved entitlement programs.

Very true. American's have a 'gimmee' mentality. Liberals espouse the idea that the world owes them a living and Uncle Sam should be responsible for everything from food and housing to healthcare and education. Then they're offended that not everyone feels that way.

Outlawing abortion is an absolute dealbreaker for Democrats. It's also something that Ron Paul is very passionate about. Pretty much that simple.

While Ron Paul hates abortion he chooses to leave regulation of it up to the States:

Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life",^[190] "an unshakable foe of abortion",^[191] and believes regulation or ban^[192] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".^[193][194] He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;^[195] his abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."

A view I believe he also stated in the recent Iowa debate.

Edited August 16, 2011 by farandaway

[BlindMessiah]

Again, suggesting Ron Paul is 'unelectable' is another MSM talking point. Polls suggest other wise. Think for your self... don't allow the media to form an 'ignorant of the facts' opinion for you.

Let's be honest acidhead. Ron Paul supports are more active than your typical supports. They manage to find a way to every single poll. It isn't that he has huge support, it's just that he has a group of dedicated supporters and in the early rounds, people with active followings tend to score well in the early polls.

[preacherman76]

Let's be honest acidhead. Ron Paul supports are more active than your typical supports. They manage to find a way to every single poll. It isn't that he has huge support, it's just that he has a group of dedicated supporters and in the early rounds, people with active followings tend to score well in the early polls.

You could be right. The thing that gives me a little hope he gets nominated is the personal amount of people I know who are suddenly down with Ron Paul. And he has some o-line polls that far seperate him from the pack. I admit though, It may not be anywhere near enough.

[FurthurBB]

Very true. American's have a 'gimmee' mentality. Liberals espouse the idea that the world owes them a living and Uncle Sam should be responsible for everything from food and housing to healthcare and education. Then they're offended that not everyone feels that way.

While Ron Paul hates abortion he chooses to leave regulation of it up to the States:

A view I believe he also stated in the recent Iowa debate.

[/color]

Funny, my liberal husband is an electrical engineer who makes well over what is considered middle class. He does not espouse any ideas that the world owes him, he hates people who feel this way, and has never felt for one second that the government should be responsible for food or housing. Education should be the job of the government and the government could use their huge buying power to provide basic insurance for everyone like most industrialized nations. So, how about we get off the inflammatory rhetoric and say something that is not detrimental to our country as a whole.

[BlindMessiah]

You could be right. The thing that gives me a little hope he gets nominated is the personal amount of people I know who are suddenly down with Ron Paul. And he has some o-line polls that far seperate him from the pack. I admit though, It may not be anywhere near enough.

I think he's going to do a lot better than he did in 2008. A lot better. In '08 if I remember right he was bringing in like 5% of the vote in the primaries. I'm guessing he's get like ten to fifteen percent in a lot of states this year. That's obviously not a winning campaign though.