Ron Paul, 2012

Paul is nice because he actually knows the 10th amendment, but takes some really really stupid positions in places (read:defense), though out of all the possibles so far, either him or Cain work best.

I liked his appearance on Stossel. He makes good arguments.

edited 5th May '11 2:29:31 PM by secretist

I'm a libertarian and I absolutely do not support Ron Paul. Quite a few of his policies seem more like thinly disguised excuses for bigotry instead of individual liberty.

1. He opposes free trade agreements, even though free trade is an important part of libertarianism.

2. Ron Paul is against all immigration. Not just illegal immigration, ALL immigration. If he were president, he would spend shitloads of money on putting heavily armed guards all around the border, and making immigration difficult for people fleeing from south of the border. The freedom to leave your country when it is in crisis and travel to one which is more prosperous and free is a basic freedom, one which Ron Paul is against.

3. He accepts money from Stormfront (a neo-Nazi organization) and the 9/11 Truthers (who say 9/11 was done by the government/Mossad/aliens/whatever). It's possible that Paul doesn't hold any of these views, but he doesn't repudiate them at all, even though neo-Nazis and 9/11 Truthers are a very small portion of the population and he wouldn't lose a lot of votes even if he flipped them off.

4. In a legal case between a man and the state of Texas, which had "anti-sodomy laws" in place at the time, Ron Paul supported Texas' anti-sodomy laws on the grounds that Texas was only exercising its "state rights". (All libertarians should oppose anti-sodomy laws simply on principle, as they restrict the freedom of individuals.) Ron Paul also opposes abortion, and says that individual states should determine its legality. Umm, hello? The point of "states' rights" is to give more power to individuals, not to the states! States don't get to make local legislation that deny their citizens of basic liberties. By Ron Paul's own logic, Jim Crow laws would have been acceptable practices of "states' rights".

I'm really hit or miss with Paul. On some issues he makes some really good arguments and has a very sound position on.. On other things he takes absolutely ludicrous positions.

The one thing that I like about Ron Paul is his consistency. His views all seem to follow a very specific and predictable line of logic, and he is by no means afraid to speak his mind whatsoever. That's very refreshing.

And I have to kind of admit that I'm getting rather tired of people fleeing here from south of the border as well. Not for the reasons that Stormfronters do, but I am starting to get really sick of it.

^ Your second point. He's consistent, if not much else, and I respect him for that.

I don't think that's how that works.

You've gotten him all kindza wrong.

edited 5th May '11 6:01:23 PM by MRDA1981

Maybe you should explain him instead.

Way, way, way, WAAAY too conservative.

I can't in good conscience vote for a pro-lifer.

^

Don't be a one-issue voter, he's also extremely pro-gun, adamantly so, and you would side with him on many other issues. Besides, he'd probably make all the anarchist rights that you feel everyone deserves that much closer to being a possibility.

Also: Paul has no idea how the Fair Tax works, which isn't the finest mark of intelligence (it's a really simple bill...), Cain it is.

@Barkey: Dude, you have no idea how much I hate one-issue voters. You can have a candidate who supports 9 out of your 10 points, but people will still get worked up over an issue. Reminds me of the flak surrounding those gay Republicans.

I just hate it when people turn down a candidate based on their position on abortion. I'm pro-choice, and I'm equally annoyed when people won't vote for a Republican with some good ideas for being pro-life, or a Democrat with good ideas because he's pro-choice. I don't consider it the most important issue facing our nation at the moment, but perhaps they do.

Given, I do have a few things that weigh pretty heavily on me. It'd have to be the God-Emperor of Mankind for me to vote for a candidate who said they wanted to outlaw private gun ownership. I did vote for Obama though, and Biden is rather anti-gun, which worried me at the time.

Ah, I rememebr the panic that erupted when Obama took office; Gander Mt was out of ammo in days.

Biden is anti-guns?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2086720/posts

If that's anti-gun, then I'm not sure I want to know what pro-gun is.

Sara Palin in a Multicam bikini with an AK-47.

This election's republican primaries are going to be interesting. o.o

Trump vs. Palin Palin vs. Paul Paul vs. Trump

(Er... assuming that Palin and Trump make it to the primaries in the first place, that is.)

Huh, that's interesting. I'd seen statements that he fell in line with Obamas opinion on guns when the elections were taking place.

That or I was too heavily associating him with how Obama was in the still ongoing process of raping Chicago and the rest of Illinois when it comes to guns.

Edit: Actually, now that I went and refreshed my memory, he voted for that shitty 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, that's why I hated him.

edited 6th May '11 8:32:38 AM by Barkey

I think you're really mad at CA.

Prepare for massive text to follow.

1. Isn't addressed by more law enforcement, it's addressed by a change of Active Shooter tactics, which we did after Fort Hood. Cops no longer wait to get backup and surround a building before taking down an active shooter. The first cop on scene goes straight in after him.

2. The guns that were used in Virginia Tech not only weren't illegal to purchase in a gun shop in any state, but they were additionally not banned by any variation of the Assault Weapons Ban. The reason for this is because the idiotic Assault Weapons Ban only affects long guns, there is almost no significant verbage regarding handguns, which are what Cho used, and also what is responsible for upwards of 90 percent of firearms related crime.

3. I agree, but better treating mental illness across the board can always be considered a good thing.

The only thing I disagree with here is exempting manufacturers from lawsuits for a product defect, that's the only time it really is the fault of the manufacturer. The rest is all stuff I agree with.

I actually support Biden in this, but I also support an amendment being made that says you can't take a legally registered gun from somebody barring them becoming a felon, being mentally unfit to have a gun, et cetera. I do not support renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. At all.

I agree with this.

Not sure why he voted no for this, it's a pretty strong deterrent to illegal firearms transferal et cetera. I suppose funding drug prosecutors might be what made him vote no, in which case I'd call him a fool.

I don't see why anyone would see the need to kill this law, so I'd vote the way Biden did. It just means a free safety device with every weapon you buy. What's wrong with that? Probably proposed by gun lobbyists because the dealers have to buy the locks or purchase them with the weapons.

So yeah, Biden got an F from the NRA. No surprise there.

Sorry for all the walls of text, but I suppose this does relate to Ron Paul in the fact that not only does he have an almost completely opposite voting record, gun policy is one of Pauls platform issues, and also the one that I like his position on the most.

edited 6th May '11 8:49:17 AM by Barkey

I'm not an one-issue voter.

I like Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy (stay out of things that ain't none of our business). He supports killing the Federal War On Drugs, and he's rather pro-gun. Overall, I like him.

However, he's too pro-life. He attempted to pass a law that would strip the SCOTUS of jurisdiction on abortion cases.

Namely, his "we the people act."

Stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction would endanger all civil liberties. If they're stripped of jurisdiction on abortion, they might get stripped of jurisdiction on privacy rights. Hello, warrantless searches!

Nice Job Breaking It, Hero.

edited 6th May '11 9:35:52 AM by SavageHeathen

I don't think Congress would ever let a law like that pass, due to the slippery slope. Thankfully we have checks and balances, and hopefully the Tea Party never gets that much of a majority to allow anything that extreme.

I think they would. It would give them immense power.

BTW, do you support funding drug prosecutors? Why?

I think they should be fired on the spot, at the very least.

edited 6th May '11 10:10:41 AM by SavageHeathen

@Barkey: Remember when the Teaparty only cared about taxes and spending?