Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why do people support Ron Paul?

Reality Master 101 (179095) writes | more than 6 years ago

User Journal 14

Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention as an "outsider" candidate, and in fact, even here at Slashdot I've seen a lot of Ron Paul in sigs.

Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention as an "outsider" candidate, and in fact, even here at Slashdot I've seen a lot of Ron Paul in sigs.

So I decided to visit his web site and see what he's all about. Uhhhhhh... why is this guy getting so much geek attention? I can only assume that people are focusing on some single issue, and haven't checked what the guy actually *believes*. Much like people who support the Libertarian Party, actually, who have some seriously crackpot stuff in their platform. But I digress.

What's wrong with Ron Paul? Here's a sampling:

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. [...] And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever." link

Sheesh. Sure, the value of trade deals is debatable, but the rhetoric above is just silly. "Gone FOREVER" OH NOOOOO!! Typical Politician fear-mongering, if not out-and-out crackpottery. So far, I'm not impressed.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA's legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements. link

Oh, geez. The FDA is certainly not perfect, but to say that the FDA "consistently" fails to protect the public from dangerous drugs is just a lie. If it wasn't for the FDA, we would be flooded with quack drugs. The Libertarian would say that the consumer should decide what's good and what's bad, but it's impractical for every citizen to have to review all the studies to know whether the thousands of drugs are effective or not. Again, I'll listen to how the FDA can be improved, but overblown words like the above don't give me confidence that there's any substance to the man.

And then, to top it off, he attacks *all* genetically modified foods broadly, showing that he has an anti-science agenda, and is completely ignorant of the issue.

I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment. [...] I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. link

I'm a supporter of home schooling, but let me get this straight. He wants home-schooled kids to have equal parity for diplomas, equal consideration for scholarships, yet doesn't think they should be be tested to see if they learned anything?? How is that supposed to work? And is the government going to force universities to accept home schooled kids with no testing?

The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. link

First of all, he's being disingenuous here. Nowhere are children "banned" from praying in school. What is banned is the SCHOOL leading prayer. That he doesn't seem to understand this (or is lying about it) is incredibly worrisome.

And then he doesn't seem to understand that freedom of religion means the government cannot advocate one religion over another, and in fact, should not be advocating religion at all. I don't feel like quoting more, but he then goes on to attack the idea of the separation of church and state. I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to be a big advocate of atheist rights.

This isn't everything I find disturbing. To be fair, I did see a lot I liked about the man (as I can say about any of the candidates, of any party). But as near as I can see, he is not deserving of the reputation that he seems to be building.

Can anyone tell me why they support Ron Paul, especially in light of the above?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

World Government... (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21226827)

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. [...] And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever."

~ Let me ask you a few questions, have you heard of the Amero ?

~ Have you heard about The Constitution of the United States is planning to be suspended ?

~ Have you heard of the North American Union ?

~ Have you watched the film ZeitGeist ?

~ Have you seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c [youtube.com]

I will let you form your own decision.

Re:World Government... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21231119)

First of all, the Amero and the North American Union are not official government proposals. Anyone can propose anything. Who cares?

I actually did watch that video, and it's just silly, not to mention a lot of it is inaccurate. One example is executive order 11921 [fas.org] , which claims that Congress can't review a declaration for six months. The order never mentions "congress" or even anything having to do with "months". I didn't bother to check a lot of the other supposed facts.

But really, the overall point is the silliness of the government hatching some plan to suspend the constitution and turn the US into a police state. Read the history of World War II if you want to see what happens with civil liberties are suspended [wikipedia.org] . It was an emergency, and yes, the government used it as an "excuse" to take over certain industries. Yet, after the war, everything returned to normal.

And what about Ron Paul, anyway? By this same reasoning, I could argue that he wants to turn the country in a Christian theocracy. Read that link about his feeling about religion. He wants schools to be allowed to force children to pray! Or at least, that's an easy conclusion I could make, whether Ron Paul believes that or not. Actually, given what he says, that would definitely happen in a lot of bible-belt schools if we rolled back the church/state separation, as he states he wants to do.

Re:World Government... (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 6 years ago | (#21232101)

"First of all, the Amero and the North American Union are not official government proposals. Anyone can propose anything. Who cares?"

If you really believe this, you are beyond help, and I wish you luck in the comings days.

Enjoy the 2nd civil war, and the police state.

"I didn't bother to check a lot of the other supposed facts."

You might want to check the facts, I looked up the executive orders.

"that would definitely happen in a lot of bible-belt schools if we rolled back the church/state separation"

We do live in a Christian country, take some coins out of your pocket and read them.

You will see "In God We Trust", not sure if it has always been there, but it has been
for decades.

I agree with you on the separation of church and state need to be done, blue laws are bullshit,
but I find myself more concerned the Billary and Obama are CFR members just like Bush,
and CFR was setup by Rockefellers and Rothchilds who setup up the non-government regulated
entity "The Federal Reserve" and whenever they print money it comes into the system
with debt attached to it.

Only one candidate is not a CFR member to my knowledge, Ron Paul,
only one wants to fix the country long term.

You can get all the details here, it is a 2 hr long movie:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331 [google.com]

Zeitgeist the movie.

Re:World Government... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21232995)

If you really believe this, you are beyond help, and I wish you luck in the comings days.

I'm beyond help because I don't believe in secret conspiracies? How exactly can the "police state" even work? Do you think the military is going to enforce it? Is Congress and the Supreme Court just going to roll over because a President issues an Executive Order suspending the constitution? Will President Obama, puppet of the CFR, order the military to seize the traitorous Supreme Court when they declare the police state unconstitional?

I don't mean to sound like I'm mocking you, but seriously: how is this out of control President going to make the rest of the government go along with him/her? Especially when there is no clear and present danger, as in World War II? No, Terrorism isn't going to do it. Even with 9/11 and stupidity that has followed, we are light years from a police state, all the shrieking rhetoric notwithstanding (e.g., no mass arrests of the people shrieking about it.)

We do live in a Christian country, take some coins out of your pocket and read them.

Yes, and "In God We Trust" is clearly unconstitutional. Not that I care all *that* much, but there's is absolutely no question that it violates the "no advocacy" clause. Anyway, you say you support the separation of church and state, so doesn't it disturb you that Ron Paul doesn't appear to?

The majority of our citizens may be Christian, but our government is not, and should not be.

Back to the police state, do you really think that Bush and Obama and Clinton and all the CFR members are secretly in league with each other to take over the country? Only Ron Paul is going to save us?

Why do people support Ron Paul? (2, Insightful)

Dlugar (124619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21241785)

Because he is the only candidate in favor of a smaller federal government. So even if some of his crackpot ideas go too far, if you believe in a smaller federal government (e.g. you're an old-school republican or a libertarian, both of which are extremely common on the intarwebs), he is most likely the major candidate that agrees with you the most.

Also note that many of his "crackpot" ideas seem less crazy if you simply add, "States should do that instead." For example, there should be no "national standards or national testing for home school parents or students"--individual states should do that instead. (And they currently do--each state has its own requirements for both parents and students who homeschool.) I think this gives a closer idea of what the man actually believes.

Dlugar

Re:Why do people support Ron Paul? (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21243299)

Because he's a charismatic man who has an honorable set of beliefs which people agree with. Because he's a sharp contrast to the same-old politicians which give the president's office and congress an abysmal approval rating.

I'm a very left-leaning guy, but I appreciate many of his ideas. I don't think he's a crackpot, even though I have difficulty understanding how someone intelligent would think the things he does.

Dr. Paul isn't a nutjob. He believes that people should have maximum control over their lives. That's a terrific idea, and I applaud his courage and dedication to provide me with that kind of freedom.

That said, I think that the populace is a combination of too-busy, too-selfish and not-educated/intelligent/informed-enough (and more) to make a totally free society work. If everybody thought the same way I did (or anyone else), we'd have no problem establishing a free society.

I'd love to dispense with most of our driving laws, if it weren't for childish idiots driving recklessly and endangering my life.

I'd love to reduce the role of police forces to aiding stranded motorists, but for the lazy bastards who can't work a full work-week and would rather steal a television I worked hard for.

I'd love to disband the SEC and have a true free market, were it not for corrupt corporations trying to trick me out of my hard earned money and stealing my retirement investments. And if you thought competition in the communications sector was bad now, I hope you list Comcast and Verizon, because their merger would be the only provider.

We could do away with the FCC in hopes of bringing realism back to the dialog in "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle", but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get good television or cellphone reception

I think a true democracy with national referendums and direct voting would be awesome, except that voting rates would be in the low single digits, or highly influenced by TV commercials, employers and PTAs, rather than informed citizens.

You write: "If it wasn't for the FDA, we would be flooded with quack drugs."

We are. They're called "natural supplements", and they cause way too many desperate people to waste money they don't have. I think these and other substances should be placed under FDA control, where Paul probably thinks the FDA couldn't do any better with that power either.

This doesn't make him crazy- we just have different opinions. I happen to think his ignore reality. He's right in that my ideas are a terrible waste of money and require "raising" taxes. I'm in favor of financially supporting government regulation, Dr. Paul knows the government is corrupt, inept and inefficient and that I'm wasting my money.

We're probably both right and both wrong, but I'd love to work with him to find a solution we can both live with. That probably won't happen, but it's a nice thought. He'd do much better as an independent than he will in the Republican primary.

But it's still nice to see someone on the right who isn't call me a terrorist.

Re:Why do people support Ron Paul? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21286741)

The whole states thing makes me hate him even more. The only organizations more corrupt than the federal government are the governments of the states.

All I like about him (1)

profquad (1177433) | more than 6 years ago | (#21242379)

Funny, the first thing you mentioned is the only thing I agree with Ron Paul on. If you don't find the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA as a problem, you've got to visit South and Central America. Or at least read a thing or two concerning the situation caused largely by the US government's initiatives. Really, a simple search for any combination of those organizations will open up a wealth of strong concerns.
I'm more concerned with him wanting to build a wall on the border.

Why would you not? (1)

BigRedFed (635728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21267605)

If you do not support Ron Paul, who do you support and why? How are their positions better than those of Ron Paul? How are they more honest than Ron Paul? Based on their voting record in Congress or their record as a Mayor/Governor, what have they done to limit the scope of governmental influence in your life and help you maintain your freedom?

Re:Why would you not? (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21268095)

If you do not support Ron Paul, who do you support and why? How are their positions better than those of Ron Paul?

Well, I have to admit you have me there. I don't know anyone significantly better. I guess I was primarily curious why he seems to be garnering some amount of enthusiasm from people. He has a lot of weird and disturbing interpretations of things (e.g., that freedom of religion means that the government and/or schools should be free to advocate Christianity), and he spews rhetoric like a standard politician (e.g., "constitutional government gone forever"). But maybe he's a wacko enough in the right way to do some good. We have enough protections against religious nutism that he probably couldn't do much damage there.

I dunno. They all suck in one way or another, but maybe he sucks less than the others. That's a reasonable point.

Re:Why would you not? (1)

nmos (25822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21287047)

He has a lot of weird and disturbing interpretations of things (e.g., that freedom of religion means that the government and/or schools should be free to advocate Christianity)

Even if he got his way on this issue I don't think it'd be a big deal. It would just push the decisions in this area down to the local community and if some communities actually want their schools to have a more Christian flavor I really don't see the harm. People who disagree still have the option of voicing their views or campaigning for school board members who see things their way. If a parent is truly offended and just can't get the majority to see things their way they still would have the option to send their kids to a different school or even move if necessary. Moving isn't trivial but it's a lot easier to move to a different school district than to move to another country if you don't like the single master set of rules set down by the Feds.
 

Trade deals (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21296733)

A lot of your disagreement is based on differing values, so I can't really speak to any of that. However, on the trade deals, I should clarify what Paul is getting at: like a lot of libertarians, he thinks that these "free trade" argreements aren't true free trade. What I don't understand, however, is why they won't support them, even when they offer free-*er* trade than the status quo.

Though I consider myself libertarian, I get pretty depressed seeing actual libertarians confront issues like that. If you propose any change, if it's not perfect, they will criticize it. I've seen this happen on, for example, the FairTax proposal, which would replace the income tax with a national sales tax. I consider this a step in the right direction: collect the same revenue with a less invasive, more transparent tax, that stops punishing investment, which I believe would massively increase economic growth. Yet *every* libertarian argument (and I can link you mises.org articles) I've seen against it is of the following form:

-It leaves bad aspect X of the current system.
-Something other than the FairTax is bad.
-Voters will later reverse it.
-Taxes are bad.

In other words, complete refusal to weigh the benefits of a change in tax policy. In fact, you could make those very same arguments against any tax cut, which libertarians are supposed to like!

So, I share your frustration with a lot of libertarians.

Re:Trade deals (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21297085)

So, I share your frustration with a lot of libertarians.

Yes, one of the flaws of Libertarians is an obsession with orienting society around their absolutely rigid simplistic principles. Any deviation from that is unacceptable.

An example I like to cite from the Libertarian Party platform is that they baldly state they want to sell off the national parks. Almost *no one* is going to be in favor of that -- it's too extreme, and most people see that the national parks are unique things that should be protected against exploitation, even by the inefficient government.

Libertarians are often very short-sighted. Sure, a private fire department that many Libertarians call for would probably be more efficient and lower cost, but then you have poor communities with no fire protection burning to the ground, and fires tend to spread out of control. It's in the benefit of everyone to have universal fire protection, but if it's done by the eeeevil inefficient government that steals our money, then it must be bad. Don't get me started about the Libertarians I've seen who think private nukes should be allowed based on second amendment rights.

Libertarians are also too obsessed with efficiency. Efficiency isn't everything! We want our society to be efficient, but we don't want the low points to be too low.

Libertarians have a lot of good ideas, but no one is going to listen to them until they realize that society is a complex beast that can't be reduced to simplistic principles.

Re:Trade deals (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21344557)

Much as I'd like to debate the merits of various libertarian policies , I'm just going to say that you're going beyond the scope of what I was complaining about. I don't think libertarian principles are in error (remember, I consider myself libertarian!), but many libertarians are unable to think clearly on various issues, even accepting those principles as valid. Let's say I agree that 4. Taxes are bad. That tells me nothing about whether this tax is better than that tax, and no, not all taxes are equally bad, even for equal net government revenues! And (to bring this back to Ron Paul), even accepting that e.g. the WTO isn't "real free trade", that says nothing about whether it's an improvement over existing trade arrangments.

Yet all I hear from libertarians is "reject the WTO -- but because it's not free trade *enough*! Hahahah!"

But if you want to know the starkest example of this, I'll refer you to anti-IP libertarians. It's like the "goodness" of property rights goes out the window so that they can rationalize arguments that they'd otherwise recognize as socialist garbage. (And just to clarify, I'm not saying that IP is good or bad, just that libertarian arguments against it are completely inconistent with everything else they say. But that's getting way off topic...)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?