What's wrong with Ron Paul?

[FixMyIgnorance]

Why is he always so censored? Does he know what he's talking about? Would you vote for him?

[Marley23]

Moved to Elections from Great Debates.

[BrainGlutton]

He's a Libertarian, and whether you'd vote for him should depend mostly on how you feel about that. But, Libertarians/libertarians are not the biggest part of the GOP's base.

[Ravenman]

Why is he always so censored? Does he know what he's talking about?He's not being censored, he's being ignored. In exactly the same way that Lyndon LaRouche is being ignored.

That very few in the media are paying attention to him isn't an outrage, it is a public service. Look at Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann: the media has given them far more attention than they deserve, which makes people start to think that those individuals should be taken seriously. Let's get real, they shouldn't.

There are plenty of people on the other side of issues who should be similarly disregarded in order to make time for issues that matter: Ralph Nader and the hobbit from Cleveland, whatshisname, among them.

[BobLibDem]

He isn't censored, he just isn't terribly important. He has a small cult-like following that come out every four years. No, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He has a bunch of crazy ideas about which he twists facts to fit his worldview. No, I wouldn't vote for him in a million years, which is approximately how long he'll be running.

[Rhythmdvl]

He's not being censored, he's being ignored. In exactly the same way that Lyndon LaRouche is being ignored.

I was just drafting a thread Ron Paul: the right’s answer to Lyndon LaRouche.

While there are a select few 'good' ideas in his platform, I'm sure that if you pick through the rubble of a clock factory after the criminally insane through a riot in there, you'd find a few clocks that displayed the correct time.

His ideas are ill-thought out, and trying to hold a conversation with one of his (typical) supporters is futile--you're most likely to get platitudes and shallow statements that lack any semblance of analysis or critical thinking.

If anyone has had a run-in with a LaRouche supporter, you'll recognize the interaction.

[BrainGlutton]

If anyone has had a run-in with a LaRouche supporter, you'll recognize the interaction.

I have, once or twice, long ago. Are they still around? Their world-view is . . . astonishing.

[John DiFool]

He also isn't a Libertarian.

[BrainGlutton]

He also isn't a Libertarian.

He was their presidential candidate in 1988, what more proof do ya want? I mean, he's a Pub now, but if the Dems can be infested with crypto-Commies as the RW often asserts, then . . .

[Da Mikster]

What is wrong with Ron Paul's ideas, and why the press doesn't cover him are probably two separate topics.
Smart folks can have some pretty dumb ideas, but they think they are brilliant.

The average editor is out to attract readers, sell advertising and in many ways promote their boss' worldview so they get a raise/promotion...

Soooo......
For many folks, they can swallow one or two bits of Dr. Paul's ideas, but there isn't enough Kool-Aid in the world to wash down the rest.

To the press, this campaign is a tired re-run of the last one. They want new, shiny and exciting.... or at least so bizarre folks stop to take notice.

[Marley23]

What is wrong with Ron Paul's ideas, and why the press doesn't cover him are probably two separate topics.
They're definitely two separate topics: whether his ideas are right or wrong, the idea that the press doesn't cover him is a fiction. It's a myth his supporters tell each other to explain why more people don't vote for him. It couldn't possibly be because only a small minority of people share his opinions.

[WillFarnaby]

Why is he always so censored? Does he know what he's talking about? Would you vote for him?

His ideas are mostly untested in real life. This frightens many people on both sides of the political spectrum. He is trying to build a movement by running for president.

He is the most consistent politician in the race.

[jtgain]

Paul's ideas, like any Libertarian idea, scares people because most people don't want drastic change in life. Sure, we might need to trim spending here and there, maybe bump up taxes here and there to control the deficit, but we don't want things to change drastically.

I get up, go to work, come home, eat, take a healthy dump, go to bed. I don't want anything that will mess with that routine too much. Paul's ideas are drastic and might mess up my routine. A mainstream Dem or GOP candidate will not do that.

[Kolga]

His ideas are mostly untested in real life. This frightens many people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Paul's ideas, like any Libertarian idea, scares people because most people don't want drastic change in life.

As much as Paul's supporters might wish this to be true, what you are mistaking for fear is actually healthy dismissal of ideas that are at best unworkable for a variety of reasons, and at worst actively damaging.

There has never, ever been a campaign that I can recall in which Paul ran and was considered a viable competitive candidate, for that very reason - most of his ideas are on the lunatic fringe. The only reason he looks even slightly respectable during this campaign season is because he's not the only lunatic running anymore.

[Lord Feldon]

I actually feel like he comes closer to getting a free pass from the media than he does to being "censored." I'd like to see a critical analysis of some of his more extreme ideas (and that's relative to his regularly extreme ideas), like the We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893:#), which would effectively repeal the 4th Amendment and a large chunk of the 1st Amendment as they apply to states. The "libertarian" candidate wants to let states ban religions and sex as they see fit and violate their citizens' privacy with impunity.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

I actually feel like he comes closer to getting a free pass from the media than he does to being "censored." I'd like to see a critical analysis of some of his more extreme ideas (and that's relative to his regularly extreme ideas), like the We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893:#), which would effectively repeal the 4th Amendment and a large chunk of the 1st Amendment as they apply to states. The "libertarian" candidate wants to let states ban religions and sex as they see fit and violate their citizens' privacy with impunity.

I think you meant the 14th amendment. But I agree, he's a nutjob. I say that with respect, I even voted for him in 1988.

[Buchanan]

I actually feel like he comes closer to getting a free pass from the media than he does to being "censored." I'd like to see a critical analysis of some of his more extreme ideas (and that's relative to his regularly extreme ideas), like the We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893:#), which would effectively repeal the 4th Amendment and a large chunk of the 1st Amendment as they apply to states. The "libertarian" candidate wants to let states ban religions and sex as they see fit and violate their citizens' privacy with impunity.

The language seems like straight-forward states' rights to me - it keeps the federal judiciary out of issues which the feds have no constitutional mandate. Where's the problem?

[Little Nemo]

As much as Paul's supporters might wish this to be true, what you are mistaking for fear is actually healthy dismissal of ideas that are at best unworkable for a variety of reasons, and at worst actively damaging.Exactly. We're not intimidated by Paul's ideas anymore than we're intimidated by Paddy Bates' claim that Sealand is a real country.

[Lord Feldon]

The language seems like straight-forward states' rights to me - it keeps the federal judiciary out of issues which the feds have no constitutional mandate. Where's the problem?

I like civil rights. "Straight-forward states' rights" takes them away. I don't think states should have the right to force me to go to church, or to come into my house without justification, or to tell me not to be gay, and I think the federal government should use force against states that violate their 14th Amendment obligations not to do those things to me.

[Little Nemo]

The language seems like straight-forward states' rights to me - it keeps the federal judiciary out of issues which the feds have no constitutional mandate. Where's the problem?The We the People Act itself acknowledges that Congress has the constitutional authority to determine what areas the federal judiciary has jurisdiction over. And if Congress didn't have the power to determine what the jurisdiction of the federal courts was, then how is an act of congress supposed to change the jurisdiction of the federal courts?

[Rhythmdvl]

In a nutshell, the We the People (heh) Act would be the first step in rolling back the incorporation doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine).

Essentially, with limited exception none of the Constitution's provisions, the Bill of Rights in particular, apply to the states. Setting a state religion, banning all guns, vesting the police with the authority to search you and your premises with impunity, etc. would all be within the purview of the states (barring any state constitutional provision).

The idea that 'people are afraid of untested ideas' aptly demonstrates the limitations and general analytical handicaps of the majority of Paul/LaRouche fans. The overall inability to critically analyze or think various proposals through distinguishes them from those who can do so, and utterly reject unsound, dangerous, and abhorrent policy proposals.

Again, a clock factory overrun by madmen will have some that occasionally display the correct time. However, the ruins are easy enough to see by those who tend to laugh at the naked emperor.

[WillFarnaby]

I actually feel like he comes closer to getting a free pass from the media than he does to being "censored." I'd like to see a critical analysis of some of his more extreme ideas (and that's relative to his regularly extreme ideas), like the We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893:#), which would effectively repeal the 4th Amendment and a large chunk of the 1st Amendment as they apply to states. The "libertarian" candidate wants to let states ban religions and sex as they see fit and violate their citizens' privacy with impunity.

I know there is a selective reading syndrome on these boards when it comes to the Comstitution, but since when does the first amendment apply to the states?

[Lord Feldon]

Interestingly, for all of his states' right talk, Ron Paul does want to ban states from allowing union shops. He's been a consistent cosponsor of a national "right to work" law. I guess states beating up their citizens for having sex or going to the wrong church is a-okay, but having to join a union or pay a fair-share fee? That's just too much, and the federal government has to stop that abuse.

[Lord Feldon]

I know there is a selective reading syndrome on these boards when it comes to the Comstitution, but since when does the first amendment apply to the states?

July 9th, 1868. ETA: Which the federal court system recognized piecemeal between 1925 and 1947. It's the law of the land now. Deal with it. Maybe the court decisions were wrong, but oh well, stare decisis is on my side, not yours.

[WillFarnaby]

July 9th, 1868. ETA: Which the federal court system recognized piecemeal between 1925 and 1947. It's the law of the land now. Deal with it. Maybe the court decisions were wrong, but oh well, stare decisis is on my side, not yours.

Judicial review isn't constitutional.

[Lord Feldon]

Judicial review isn't constitutional.

Especially if the flag has gold fringe.

[Little Nemo]

Judicial review isn't constitutional.Judicial review is neither mandated nor prohibited by the Constitution.

[Ravenman]

I cannot be prosecuted if my name is in all caps, because that is only the corporation of me, not my name as a natural person.

ETA: that's an addition to Lord Feldon's comment.

[Jonathan Chance]

"Judicial Review isn't constitutional"?

I know you mean well but that's not a set of words I'm ready to accept without a lot of back up.

[Ravenman]

Let me guess: everything that occurred after September 1789 is wrong. That's about as good an argument as you will get.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Judicial review isn't constitutional.

So every time the court's done it since Marbury versus Madison can be safely ignored, yes?

[WillFarnaby]

Correct. Judicial review is neither prohibited nor mandated in the Constitution. Those powers not expressed in the Constitution go to the states.

The 10th amendment guarantees this. Therefore state nullification is the check on federal power. Jefferson in his Kentucky Resolution and Madison, father of the Constitution, in his Virginia Resolutions concur with me.

[Lord Feldon]

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."

[njtt]

I was just drafting a thread Ron Paul: the right’s answer to Lyndon LaRouche.

Are you under the impression that Lyndon LaRouche is on the left?:eek:

[Exapno Mapcase]

Jefferson agreed with nullification and state supremacy until he was president. Then he stopped believing in it. Later he went back to believing.

Not only can I find a quote from a Founding Father on any side of any subject, I can find a quote from any particular Founding Father on any side of any subject. They argued with a system that was still in development, not with the developed system that exists today.

What the Founding Fathers thought is not an argument. It's like citing the Bible. People cherry pick whatever quote they want to make a point without showing any understanding of the whole. Selective reading indeed!

[WillFarnaby]

Jefferson agreed with nullification and state supremacy until he was president. Then he stopped believing in it. Later he went back to believing.

Not only can I find a quote from a Founding Father on any side of any subject, I can find a quote from any particular Founding Father on any side of any subject. They argued with a system that was still in development, not with the developed system that exists today.

What the Founding Fathers thought is not an argument. It's like citing the Bible. People cherry pick whatever quote they want to make a point without showing any understanding of the whole. Selective reading indeed!

When did Jefferson change his mind on this? So I guess your view represents understanding of the whole while a more strict interpretation lacks understanding

[kenetic]

When did Jefferson change his mind on this? So I guess your view represents understanding of the whole while a more strict interpretation lacks understanding

Or maybe a "strict interpretation" is just a excuse for picking and choosing what views you want to attribute to the FF?

[WillFarnaby]

Or maybe a "strict interpretation" is just a excuse for picking and choosing what views you want to attribute to the FF?

It's an excuse for reading the document and words from people instrumental in it's creation in order to gain an understanding of their intentions.

Is that wrong? I mean say you find a letter and can't read it. You're with two people. One wrote the letter and one didn't. Who do you ask to interpret it?

[BrainGlutton]

Are you under the impression that Lyndon LaRouche is on the left?:eek:

Is Paul on the right?

LaRouche does have a background in Marxist politics, in the '60s and early '70s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#1960s) Then he suffered a Sea Change, into something Rich and Strange.

[kenetic]

It's an excuse for reading the document and words from people instrumental in it's creation in order to gain an understanding of their intentions.

Is that wrong? I mean say you find a letter and can't read it. You're with two people. One wrote the letter and one didn't. Who do you ask to interpret it?

Did you miss this post?

What the Founding Fathers thought is not an argument. It's like citing the Bible. People cherry pick whatever quote they want to make a point without showing any understanding of the whole. Selective reading indeed!

Everything's open to interpretation. Everyone I've met who claims to believe in a "strict interpretation" of the constitution and/or the FF's intentions is picking and choosing things and interpreting them in the way they choose. Heck, I did that when I was a young and foolish libertarian.

And even if we could unambiguously divine the FF's intent, so what? They weren't omniscient. Even if we agree that they created the best possible government for their time, things have changed. It's ridiculous to cling to some glorious past, and even more so when that glorious past is totally made up.

[Voyager]

Back to the OP:
When Paul was doing a bit better than he is now, the media should have covered him more.
They didn't, I think for two reasons:
1. He's crazy in the same way he was four years ago, and crazy in a boring way without good sound bites. Plus, there is no shortage of crazy in the Republican field today, so he no longer stands out.
2. No boobs.
And if I were doing this right it would be 3. Hi Opal in the proper use of that term.)

[An Arky]

Speaking of the supposed media blackout on him, whatever became of that fake eyebrow thing?

[WillFarnaby]

Did you miss this post?



Everything's open to interpretation. Everyone I've met who claims to believe in a "strict interpretation" of the constitution and/or the FF's intentions is picking and choosing things and interpreting them in the way they choose. Heck, I did that when I was a young and foolish libertarian.

And even if we could unambiguously divine the FF's intent, so what? They weren't omniscient. Even if we agree that they created the best possible government for their time, things have changed. It's ridiculous to cling to some glorious past, and even more so when that glorious past is totally made up.

I understand the futility of using the words of the FF in an argument.

That being said, there have been wise men in our country's history who warned us of the excesses of government. To cast this advice aside because the past was less than glorious is foolish.

[kenetic]

I understand the futility of using the words of the FF in an argument.

That being said, there have been wise men in our country's history who warned us of the excesses of government. To cast this advice aside because the past was less than glorious is foolish.

Again, you totally missed the point of what I said. :rolleyes:

[Kolga]

One person's Excess of Government is another person's Important and Vital Program. The country's significantly larger, more diverse, and more complicated than it was 200 years ago, so there might be a need to think about government in a different way.

[Da Mikster]

One person's Excess of Government is another person's Important and Vital Program. The country's significantly larger, more diverse, and more complicated than it was 200 years ago, so there might be a need to think about government in a different way.

Sadly, I've found more than a few 'small government' folks who's criteria for whether spending is essential or not DOES boil down to "What's in it for ME?".....

- like the nice Rep from Texas who pushed for deep spending cuts, right up until his district lost jobs due to NASA cutbacks.

- or the childless folks (or those who send their kids to private schools) who oppose new public education spending.

Being 'conservative' USED to mean more than just being a selfish bastard. I'm not sure it does anymore.

Smaller doesn't necessarily = more efficient, or better.... sorry.

[Euphonious Polemic]

He also isn't a Libertarian.

I'm beginning to think that there are no actual Libertarians (or even libertarians) in existence. They seem to be mythical beings. Likewise libertarian (or Libertarian) policies. Every time one is pointed out, someone will be along to say "that's not a libertarian policy" or "he's not a libertarian".

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

His foreign policy is possibly the worst since Henry Wallace's in 1948.

[Tatterdemalion]

I'm beginning to think that there are no actual Libertarians (or even libertarians) in existence. They seem to be mythical beings. Likewise libertarian (or Libertarian) policies. Every time one is pointed out, someone will be along to say "that's not a libertarian policy" or "he's not a libertarian".

Ron Paul is a Libertarian in much the same sense that Mitt Romney is a christian.

[Larry Borgia]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian in much the same sense that Mitt Romney is a christian.
He thinks the angel Moroni wrote a sequel to Atlas Shrugged?

[BrainGlutton]

He thinks the angel Moroni wrote a sequel to Atlas Shrugged?

Or a prequel . . . There's a cover story in the October 2012 Harper's "Pennies from Heaven: How Mormon economics shape the G.O.P.," (http://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/0083637) by Chris Lehmann, the which I can't seem to find a link a nonsubscriber can read but I skimmed it on the magazine-rack and the 'Net-buzz on it is fun to watch . . . Summary is, Mormons are more hardcore Wealth-Gospelers than any Calvinist and seem to have actually pushed the GOP even more furtherer along that way.

[Tatterdemalion]

He thinks the angel Moroni wrote a sequel to Atlas Shrugged?

I was thinking more that neither of them are true Scotsmen either.

Ron Paul calls himself a Libertarian, and Mitt Romney calls himself a christian. I'm not sure if I agree with either one of them, but I suppose I have to acknowledge their own self identification.

[Da Mikster]

Ron Paul calls himself a Libertarian, and Mitt Romney calls himself a christian. I'm not sure if I agree with either one of them, but I suppose I have to acknowledge their own self identification.

As long as nobody calls either of them "Mr. President", I'll be happier :p

[Voyager]

He thinks the angel Moroni wrote a sequel to Atlas Shrugged?

:eek: That book would fall into some sort of black hole of unreadability and general crapitude.

[ITR champion]

He thinks the angel Moroni wrote a sequel to Atlas Shrugged?
Well, somebody wrote one.
(http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif)

[Jackmannii]

Ron Paul gets coverage, certainly in proportion to his electoral success (minimal to date), not as much as his groupies dazzled by straw poll results would like. Paulites should be grateful he doesn't get more press attention, as the level of crazy would diminish his already near-nonexistent chances of winning any GOP primaries.

I would not vote for him for several reasons. First, there is the "I don't wanna and you can't make me" tone of Libertarianoid politics in general. Specifically, I am disgusted with Paul's positions on medicine/health-related matters (antivaccination, anti-FDA, pro-raw milk, pro-unproven supplements etc.) He gets an automatic dismissal from me on those beliefs alone. Lastly, I am really tired of hearing from Paulites about the Constitution and Founding Fathers, which they are under the illusion that no one else has ever studied and which they believe hold all the answers to current-day problems, along with the works of fringe economists.

I did like Ron Paul in "Bruno" however.

[Rhythmdvl]

Well, somebody wrote one.
(http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif)

I always figured the Altas Shrugged escapees (?) would suffer a fate similar to those of Golgafrincham.

[Little Nemo]

Lastly, I am really tired of hearing from Paulites about the Constitution and Founding Fathers, which they are under the illusion that no one else has ever studied and which they believe hold all the answers to current-day problems, along with the works of fringe economists.They just assume that everyone knows as little about the subject as they do and speak accordingly.

[Really Not All That Bright]

He also isn't a Libertarian.
He was their presidential candidate in 1988, what more proof do ya want? I mean, he's a Pub now, but if the Dems can be infested with crypto-Commies as the RW often asserts, then . . .
As I've said here many times, Libertarian Party candidates aren't libertarians. They're conservatives who are okay with pot.

Paul is more of an actual libertarian than most but only in the sense that he doesn't want the feds telling people what to do. He doesn't care if the states tell people what to do.

This is in contrast to most conservatives, who are for states' rights because the feds are keeping them from doing what they want to do (and because the states mostly aren't). If the states started telling them they couldn't do things they'd stop talking about states' rights (much as they do when states tell them they can't ban gay marriage, or impose national drinking ages).
Is that wrong? I mean say you find a letter and can't read it. You're with two people. One wrote the letter and one didn't. Who do you ask to interpret it?
This analogy only makes sense if the people you are with are dead. Like the founders. Unless, perhaps, you have a time machine.

[BrainGlutton]

As I've said here many times, Libertarian Party candidates aren't libertarians. They're conservatives who are okay with pot.

So who are the True MacLibertarians, then?

[Really Not All That Bright]

They're imaginary.

[BrainGlutton]

They're imaginary.

I know Ayn Rand was . . .

[kenetic]

I know Ayn Rand was . . .

What, imaginary or a libertarian? Because I'm pretty sure she was neither.

[BrainGlutton]

Or a prequel . . . There's a cover story in the October 2012 Harper's "Pennies from Heaven: How Mormon economics shape the G.O.P.," (http://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/0083637) by Chris Lehmann, the which I can't seem to find a link a nonsubscriber can read but I skimmed it on the magazine-rack and the 'Net-buzz on it is fun to watch . . . Summary is, Mormons are more hardcore Wealth-Gospelers than any Calvinist and seem to have actually pushed the GOP even more furtherer along that way.

Not that Perry's religion (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/12104/biblical_capitalism) is any bit better in that regard. :rolleyes: