Who Else Is Voting For Ron Paul?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Libertarians, as they say, are usually one of two breeds.
1. Dope Smoking Republicans
2. College students up at 2am smoking weed and discussing what seem like the endless possibilities of life.

In either case, neither is gonna help us out of the messes we are in.

From a purely philosophical viewpoint, Ron Paul is correct about most issues. But the real world is not anywhere close to our idealistic hopes....and we can't get there from here. We can get closer to that goal bit by bit, but this requires individual change.

Or to put it another way, we get exactly the government we deserve. When we grow up, our government may grow up too.
 
Ranger375 said:
The dude is nuts. :D Maybe if he didn't talk about eliminating all the important federal agencies and had a foreign policy that was something other than let everyone do what they want while we stay at home and hope for the best, I might vote for him.
Click to expand...

Sigh. If that's what you get out of his foreign policy then America has no hope.
 
craigiri said:
Libertarians, as they say, are usually one of two breeds.
1. Dope Smoking Republicans
2. College students up at 2am smoking weed and discussing what seem like the endless possibilities of life.

In either case, neither is gonna help us out of the messes we are in.

From a purely philosophical viewpoint, Ron Paul is correct about most issues. But the real world is not anywhere close to our idealistic hopes....and we can't get there from here. We can get closer to that goal bit by bit, but this requires individual change.

Or to put it another way, we get exactly the government we deserve. When we grow up, our government may grow up too.
Click to expand...

Wow, way to add to the conversation with your stereotyping. :rolleyes:
 
SchmitzIT said:
I'm neither of those.
Click to expand...
Ha - I didn't make up those descriptions.....and certainly there are lots of exceptions!

Interestingly enough, way back in my day libertarians would have been considered as leaning to the left - because the real meaning of liberal politics is for the government to stay out of our heads, bedrooms and such things (hence the dope-smoking comedy).

In fact, many of the "hippies" I knew from back when could be called libertarian..they were self-sufficient, no debt, anti-war, live and let live and did not collect welfare or vote.

I myself signed up for the Free State Project many years ago when I soured on party politics.

But just as the Free State Project didn't work, libertarians injecting themselves in national politics didn't work out too well either. This made them choose a side, and they choose the GOP...which then did away with their independence.

Mind you, I'm only giving political opinion here. I've been active in these matter since I attended the vietnam war demonstrations in DC in 1970, so have seen a few things come and go.

Here in our state, Libertarians have done a good job at getting some issues on the ballot. First is one which somewhat proves my first generalization....yep, they put the decriminalization of pot on the ballot! It won. Citizens here can smoke without any concerns about jail or handcuffs. They also put some anti-tax proposals on the ballot - lowering the income and sales taxes. Those initiatives lost, because people here know how to count. That is, they know if we don't have the money, we can't provide the services to our commonwealth.

Right now there is a Death With Dignity question on the ballot...which would seem to be another libertarian-type of issue. I helped gather signs to make that happen.

All in all I think libertarian is a frame of mind....not a political party. In political tests I score over in the libertarian quad.
 
Ranger375 said:
Then please enlighten me about his foreign policy and how it will benefit this country. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

His foreign policy is simple:

Start closing some of our over 100+ military bases across the globe, start pulling out troops out of Afghanistan, close our $1 billion embassy in Iraq and last but not least, stop starting wars over oil in the name of Democracy.

As far as his policy of closing down federal branches of the Government such as the DOE and HLS, I am for that as well. This will allow the federal government to begin to cut taxes across the classes in America and allow states to better control their education systems.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
His foreign policy is simple:

Start closing some of our over 100+ military bases across the globe, start pulling out troops out of Afghanistan, close our $1 billion embassy in Iraq and last but not least, stop starting wars over oil in the name of Democracy.

As far as his policy of closing down federal branches of the Government such as the DOE and HLS, I am for that as well. This will allow the federal government to begin to cut taxes across the classes in America and allow states to better control their education systems.
Click to expand...

So disbanding DHS and CIA makes sense to you? How does closing bases around the globe make us safer? How does allowing a country to create nuclear weapons with the ability to distribute to terrorists make us safer? Sure I can see how that would save us quite a bit of money, but comeon now. There is plenty of evil out there that makes us a necessity.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
As far as his policy of closing down federal branches of the Government such as the DOE and HLS, I am for that as well. This will allow the federal government to begin to cut taxes across the classes in America and allow states to better control their education systems.
Click to expand...

Which DoE?

Dept Of Energy
Employees 16,000 federal (2009)
93,094 contract (2008)
Dept Of Eduction
Employees5,000 (2007)

HomeLand Services
Employees 216,000 (2010)

Not taking either side, but what happens when you put 1/4 million people [assuming wikipedia is correct] out of work? Granted, much of it would be privatized but still.
 
Ranger375 said:
So disbanding DHS and CIA makes sense to you? How does closing bases around the globe make us safer? How does allowing a country to create nuclear weapons with the ability to distribute to terrorists make us safer? Sure I can see how that would save us quite a bit of money, but comeon now. There is plenty of evil out there that makes us a necessity.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about the CIA.

The DHS did not exist before 2001 and 9/11 could have been prevented with common sense and a foreign policy built around defending our countries borders instead of blowing up and rebuilding other countries. It did not need an entire new branch of Government to stop it from happening.

Iran has a more stable government than Pakistan, yet Pakistan has a nuclear weapon and Iran does not.

The United States is the one creating the instability, not the other way around. Our history of involvement and meddling in the Middle East goes back to Iran in the 1950's. We created the monster that is the Middle East, all over oil.
 
steven s said:
Which DoE?

Dept Of Energy
Employees 16,000 federal (2009)
93,094 contract (2008)
Dept Of Eduction
Employees5,000 (2007)

HomeLand Services
Employees 216,000 (2010)

Not taking either side, but what happens when you put 1/4 million people [assuming wikipedia is correct] out of work? Granted, much of it would be privatized but still.
Click to expand...

Department of Education.

As far as putting people out of work, those jobs would be recreated within each individual state.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
Department of Education.

As far as putting people out of work, those jobs would be recreated within each individual state.
Click to expand...
By states that are already struggling with their own budgets? I don't think so.
The budgetary problems won't be solved by pushing them onto others.
It doesn't go away by making it someone else's problem.

All governments need to do what my wife and I have been doing for the past few years.
We have been paying down our credit card debt with a realistic budget.
We don't go out as much and when we do it needs to be worth it.
When we do make a semi-major purchase they are done with zero percent loans and paid off within the terms of the loan.
Amazing what you can do on normally what was a 2 income budget that goes to 1 income for a few months each year between layoffs when you have to.

But we digress and are wandering O/T.
I'm still undecided but open minded enough to hear them all out.
I don't vote with my religious beliefs. I use my gut feeling.
 
steven s said:
By states that are already struggling with their own budgets? I don't think so.
The budgetary problems won't be solved by pushing them onto others.
It doesn't go away by making it someone else's problem.

All governments need to do what my wife and I have been doing for the past few years.
We have been paying down our credit card debt with a realistic budget.
We don't go out as much and when we do it needs to be worth it.
When we do make a semi-major purchase they are done with zero percent loans and paid off within the terms of the loan.
Amazing what you can do on normally what was a 2 income budget that goes to 1 income for a few months each year between layoffs when you have to.

But we digress and are wandering O/T.
I'm still undecided but open minded enough to hear them all out.
I don't vote with my religious beliefs. I use my gut feeling.
Click to expand...

Because these states rely on the Federal government too much as it is. Most states can not have an income tax because we are already so heavily taxes at the federal level. Thus, they have to rely on sales tax, which is dependent on the economy. As far as paying down on a realistic budget... well that means cutting unrealistic spending. Like our bloated federal government and our $1,000,000,000,000 military budget.
 
craigiri said:
All in all I think libertarian is a frame of mind....not a political party. In political tests I score over in the libertarian quad.
Click to expand...

I can dig that. I certainly have not found a single candidate or party that fits me like a glove. In fact, I'd be scared if I would *LOL*

I am not wholly libertarian, either. I believe the primary function of a government is or should be to ensure I can live my life within my rights, and that's about it. It ought to protect my rights when they are violated, and slap me on the wrist if I am violating someone else's rights. It ought to provide those services that the public wants it to provide, and no more.

At the same time I do believe that there should be basic satety protections in place for those who were handed a bad deck of cards by life, or who end up in bad situations by no fault of their own.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
The United States is the one creating the instability, not the other way around. Our history of involvement and meddling in the Middle East goes back to Iran in the 1950's. We created the monster that is the Middle East, all over oil.
Click to expand...

This is something that many Americans don't understand. They wave the giant foam finger without understanding that the foam and labor to make that finger cheap likely robbed someone else of fair wages, clear air or water or the resources under their feet.

The single biggest problem the world faces is excess resource consumption by us - us being anyone who is here on this board (or 99.9% of them) or who lives in the western fashion. This is something which cannot be "fixed" by politics. If Americans or Brits, etc. cheer for war (for oil) and for more materials and more riches, then others are going to suffer for it. It's always been that way - look at the history of Rome or England, etc.

It took virtually the entire world to support the British way of life...and now it is somewhat the same for ALL of us born into western countries.

It all comes down to the units of energy that each person uses for their lifestyle. Unfortunately, a resident of a modern country cannot get away from this by living in a tent, because the society and government is spending the energy for you.

Maybe this is another subject, but it's really the basis behind our world occupation. Resources. Energy. Quickie facts:

A Texan uses about 520,000,000 BTU's of energy per year (for everything)
A New Englander uses about 1/2 of that.
British and well-off European countries use about the same or 10-20% less than New Englanders
"2nd" world countries use 1/4 or so as much as Europeans
3rd world countries use 1/10 or less as much.

The sad truth, IMHO, is that if any of us (as a group - countries) wish to live high on the hog, many people elsewhere end up suffering as a result. This is not a blameless situation since we actually take their resources, install their governments and use their cheap labor.

Until each citizen has these realizations and we, as voters and citizens, react to them.....the same old, same old is going to apply. People can pretend they don't like war and world occupation, but in truth it supports their cheap consumer goods.
 
Would it not be better to ask who would everyone vote for?

Ron Paul is the only one not to flip flop on the major issues which tells you he actually believes in what he says. I think the reason he is so popular among younger voters is because he uses very rational examples of why he believes in something. These views are almost irrefutable until you dig down into what some of his views really mean and that is ultimately where his problem lies.

I think another aspect is that younger voters have not lived long enough or have only recently started caring about political affairs, that they will only start to realise how difficult he views would be to implement if he were to become President. I think executing some of his views would face huge legal and political barriers; and nothing much would get done.

As for the rest... I don't understand how any responsible person could vote for any of them. They not only don't believe anything they say themselves but they also have done some of the things which which they oppose. I know there is hypocrisy in politics but nothing on the levels of some these candidates.
 
I thing executing some of his views, would face huge legal and political barriers; and nothing much would get done.
Click to expand...

I don't understand? Everything we do with establishment, status quo Presidents results in nothing getting done unless it harms our rights or other rights of people not in this country.

I think that is just crap, to say that Ron Paul would face obstacles to get his plans done, our current political leaders face the same obstacles.

Ron Paul is on the right track. If you want to nit pick his views then do the same for the GOP and DNC. It leads to the DNC and GOP being far, far worse than anything Ron Paul would institute.
 
BamaStangGuy said:
I think that is just crap, to say that Ron Paul would face obstacles to get his plans done, our current political leaders face the same obstacles.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Only Ron Pauls views are slightly more radical and for that reason, I think he would run into many more political/legal barriers to implementing the things he wants to do. For instance his foreign policy and stance on the federal reserve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom