Topic: FAO: Ron Paul haters
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #5,063
I think I have heard everything positive there is to be said about the man and his positions. I also know the "I've never heard of him"/party politics "I thought you just had to choose Republican or Democrat".
What I haven't heard is the "I know who Ron Paul is and I disagree with positions a, b, and c for reasons x, y and z.
Anyone here that could do that?
What I haven't heard is the "I know who Ron Paul is and I disagree with positions a, b, and c for reasons x, y and z.
Anyone here that could do that?
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later[^] [v] #89,408
@OP
It is hard to disagree with common sense. Ron Paul Fuck Yeah!
It is hard to disagree with common sense. Ron Paul Fuck Yeah!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #89,410
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
I ask this because everyone who knows of him seems to like him (apart from people who aspire to the same job and their cronies lol).
There must be some type of principled opposition though.
I ask this because everyone who knows of him seems to like him (apart from people who aspire to the same job and their cronies lol).
There must be some type of principled opposition though.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #89,412
@previous (A)
Nothing is ever concrete (nothing I have heard) in the way of criticism. It is always "He is a crazy old man etc."
Nothing is ever concrete (nothing I have heard) in the way of criticism. It is always "He is a crazy old man etc."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #89,414
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
I guess to be fair though there isn't much concrete criticism of anything in mainstream american politics. Just a whole lot of shouting.
I guess to be fair though there isn't much concrete criticism of anything in mainstream american politics. Just a whole lot of shouting.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,477
@89,412 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
At least he ain't claiming Obama not USA Citizen
To OP
I think the guy is honest and means well. He cannot draw main stream Republican support.
At least he ain't claiming Obama not USA Citizen
To OP
I think the guy is honest and means well. He cannot draw main stream Republican support.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 52 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,489
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,541
The other thing you will hear when discussing Ron Paul is "He'll never win anyway, so I'm not going to waste my vote on him!".
lol, fucking idiots.
lol, fucking idiots.
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,550
@previous (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
This is a legitimate concern in US politics. Perhaps another voting system is needed (eg preferential voting).
This is a legitimate concern in US politics. Perhaps another voting system is needed (eg preferential voting).
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,568
@previous (Lynne B Goldstein)
It's a legitimate concern if you're an idiot, sure.
You should be voting for the candidate that you think should be president, not the candidate that you think is likely to win the election. Why bother voting at all if you're just going to go with whomever you perceive as being the clearcut winner?
It's a legitimate concern if you're an idiot, sure.
You should be voting for the candidate that you think should be president, not the candidate that you think is likely to win the election. Why bother voting at all if you're just going to go with whomever you perceive as being the clearcut winner?
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,782
@previous (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
No, you don't understand. In US politics you must vote for one of the two top candidates, otherwise your vote is wasted. In US politics you effectively vote AGAINST the Democratic party, instead of FOR the Republican party.
No, you don't understand. In US politics you must vote for one of the two top candidates, otherwise your vote is wasted. In US politics you effectively vote AGAINST the Democratic party, instead of FOR the Republican party.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,897
@previous (Lynne B Goldstein)
But we're talking about voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries to make him the main candidate, not voting for him under a third party or writing him in (in states that even allow you to do so). Also, voting for a third party is not necessarily a waste, because if everyone just ditched the mentality that voting for a third party is a waste, one of the other parties might be able to break the whole two-party system bullshit.
But we're talking about voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries to make him the main candidate, not voting for him under a third party or writing him in (in states that even allow you to do so). Also, voting for a third party is not necessarily a waste, because if everyone just ditched the mentality that voting for a third party is a waste, one of the other parties might be able to break the whole two-party system bullshit.
grg !!fERIbUB8u joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,917
Aus has preferential voting - meaning voting for a third party is never a waste - but parliament is still dominated by two parties. People just prefer it that way.
nm, there's worse things in the world.
nm, there's worse things in the world.
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,926
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #89,942
Check out his ontheissues page to see if you agree with him. Like every other politician, I agree with him on some issues (ending the drug war) and thing he's incorrect on others (abortion is murder).
He's not great, but he's not terrible either.
He's not great, but he's not terrible either.
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,175
@89,897 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Yes but people are not voting for him in the primaries because of this problem in the elections
Yes but people are not voting for him in the primaries because of this problem in the elections
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,177
@89,917 (grg !!fERIbUB8u)
People vote for the party they want though, whereas in the US they vote against the party they don't like...
People vote for the party they want though, whereas in the US they vote against the party they don't like...
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,183
Lynne B Goldstein (OP) quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,184
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,217
@89,897 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
This.
@89,942 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The abortion thing is his personal stance on the issue. Ron Paul has been very clear that he would not let his own views cloud his judgement when creating policy. Ron Paul is for liberty and freedom, one of those freedoms is the right to do whatever you want with your body; I don't think he would cause any problems for people in need of abortions.
This.
@89,942 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The abortion thing is his personal stance on the issue. Ron Paul has been very clear that he would not let his own views cloud his judgement when creating policy. Ron Paul is for liberty and freedom, one of those freedoms is the right to do whatever you want with your body; I don't think he would cause any problems for people in need of abortions.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,234
@previous (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
> The abortion thing is his personal stance on the issue. Ron Paul has been very clear that he would not let his own views cloud his judgement when creating policy.
His solution to the abortion issue is "let the states decide", which doesn't really address the issue. If a woman does fundamentally have the right to an abortion, then letting state governments deny women that right isn't any better than letting the federal government infringe on your liberties. Abortion is one of those things that needs to be deemed legal or illegal on a federal level in order to ensure that people's liberties are protected.
> The abortion thing is his personal stance on the issue. Ron Paul has been very clear that he would not let his own views cloud his judgement when creating policy.
His solution to the abortion issue is "let the states decide", which doesn't really address the issue. If a woman does fundamentally have the right to an abortion, then letting state governments deny women that right isn't any better than letting the federal government infringe on your liberties. Abortion is one of those things that needs to be deemed legal or illegal on a federal level in order to ensure that people's liberties are protected.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,239
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> His solution to the abortion issue is "let the states decide", which doesn't really address the issue.
Because it's not a federal issue.
> If a woman does fundamentally have the right to an abortion
They don't. Neither does one have a fundamental right to drugs. Yet one may support legalization of both.
> then letting state governments deny women that right isn't any better than letting the federal government infringe on your liberties
It is you want to follow the constitution. There are clearly defined realms of government.
> Abortion is one of those things that needs to be deemed legal or illegal on a federal level in order to ensure that people's liberties are protected.
Fine, but you'll have to amend the constitution to make abortion a federal responsibility.
> His solution to the abortion issue is "let the states decide", which doesn't really address the issue.
Because it's not a federal issue.
> If a woman does fundamentally have the right to an abortion
They don't. Neither does one have a fundamental right to drugs. Yet one may support legalization of both.
> then letting state governments deny women that right isn't any better than letting the federal government infringe on your liberties
It is you want to follow the constitution. There are clearly defined realms of government.
> Abortion is one of those things that needs to be deemed legal or illegal on a federal level in order to ensure that people's liberties are protected.
Fine, but you'll have to amend the constitution to make abortion a federal responsibility.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,246
@previous (A)
> Because it's not a federal issue.
Says you. The Supreme Court (the experts in the field of constitutional law) disagree. I'm going to trust them over you on this issue, sorry.
> They don't. Neither does one have a fundamental right to drugs. Yet one may support legalization of both.
My wording was poor, and I apologize. The issue is, does abortion fall under the protection of the due process clause of the 14th amendment? The Supreme court decision was "Yes". I think that drugs do fall under that same protection as well, but that's up to the Supreme Court to decide.
> It is you want to follow the constitution. There are clearly defined realms of government.
If the Constitution allows people's rights to be infringed upon by the government, then clearly the Constitution needs to be amended.
> Fine, but you'll have to amend the constitution to make abortion a federal responsibility.
Not according to Roe v. Wade.
> Because it's not a federal issue.
Says you. The Supreme Court (the experts in the field of constitutional law) disagree. I'm going to trust them over you on this issue, sorry.
> They don't. Neither does one have a fundamental right to drugs. Yet one may support legalization of both.
My wording was poor, and I apologize. The issue is, does abortion fall under the protection of the due process clause of the 14th amendment? The Supreme court decision was "Yes". I think that drugs do fall under that same protection as well, but that's up to the Supreme Court to decide.
> It is you want to follow the constitution. There are clearly defined realms of government.
If the Constitution allows people's rights to be infringed upon by the government, then clearly the Constitution needs to be amended.
> Fine, but you'll have to amend the constitution to make abortion a federal responsibility.
Not according to Roe v. Wade.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,258
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
No, a particular supreme court decided that. Just like a particular supreme court decided that blacks could not be citizens of the USA. I am not denying their authority, just their infallibility.
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
> Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
> Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
> Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What part of that guarantees abortion? lol It's not up to the supreme court to decide, it's up to the state to legislate upon with due process. The supreme court has made many complete BS decisions like pretending the interstate commerce clause grants the federal government practically unrestricted rights to intervene in anything.
I know you're not dumb, I'll let you read that again and see if you understand it.
edit: im repying paragraph by paragraph quoting makes it look ugly
No, a particular supreme court decided that. Just like a particular supreme court decided that blacks could not be citizens of the USA. I am not denying their authority, just their infallibility.
> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
> Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
> Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
> Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What part of that guarantees abortion? lol It's not up to the supreme court to decide, it's up to the state to legislate upon with due process. The supreme court has made many complete BS decisions like pretending the interstate commerce clause grants the federal government practically unrestricted rights to intervene in anything.
I know you're not dumb, I'll let you read that again and see if you understand it.
edit: im repying paragraph by paragraph quoting makes it look ugly
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,268
@previous (A)
> No, a particular supreme court decided that. Just like a particular supreme court decided that blacks could not be citizens of the USA. I am not denying their authority, just their infallibility.
When did I ever say they were infallible? All I said was that in this particular issue (Constitutional law), they are the experts, and their opinion should be given more weight than an anonymous guy on the internet.
> What part of that guarantees abortion? lol It's not up to the supreme court to decide
Yes, it is. The Supreme Court determined that the due process clause was violated by the state when it forbid abortion in the first trimester. It's not difficult to understand.
> No, a particular supreme court decided that. Just like a particular supreme court decided that blacks could not be citizens of the USA. I am not denying their authority, just their infallibility.
When did I ever say they were infallible? All I said was that in this particular issue (Constitutional law), they are the experts, and their opinion should be given more weight than an anonymous guy on the internet.
> What part of that guarantees abortion? lol It's not up to the supreme court to decide
Yes, it is. The Supreme Court determined that the due process clause was violated by the state when it forbid abortion in the first trimester. It's not difficult to understand.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #90,527
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Where they the experts when they declared Blacks could not be citizens? Their opinions are not necessarily more valuable, merely more authoritative.
The Supreme Court has abused it's authority many times in the past and this is one of them. Others would be the overextension of the Commerce Clause and various pro-slavery and racially discriminative laws.
Where they the experts when they declared Blacks could not be citizens? Their opinions are not necessarily more valuable, merely more authoritative.
The Supreme Court has abused it's authority many times in the past and this is one of them. Others would be the overextension of the Commerce Clause and various pro-slavery and racially discriminative laws.