Source
r/politics•
Craptcha

Ron Paulites: I Was Wrong.

I've been lurking Reddit for years and never posted anything. But I now feel I've got something to say. I'm a long time admirer of Obama and, during the campaign, I was a little amused and even annoyed that so many progressive liberals would be wasting energy on Ron Paul.

I was wrong.

Obama, whom I still respect, is nowhere near the transformative figure I convinced myself he would be. Ron Paul, on the other hand, continues to baffle me with his courage and integrity. In my opinion, he's way closer to the original ideas that made America great.

So, again, you were right and I was wrong. Thanks for rooting for Paul, I know where to turn my attention towards from now on.

Posted Dec 16, 2010, 4:11 AM UTC

1257
CorpusDei•

What about abortion rights? Roe vs Wade? And stem cell research? He does have stances on certain issues that seriously suck.

5
[deleted]•

Certain issues?

He's opposed to evolution; wants to abolish the fed & return to the gold standard; opposed to equal pay for equal work for men and women; wants to close the department of education and encourage homeschooling with tax breaks; wants to amend the constitution to allow school prayer; has twice voted in favor of keeping "under God" in the constitution; is opposed to all plans to stop global warming; is in favor of oil drilling in the arctic and close to the coast; is opposed to the Kyoto protocol; believes property right is the most important of all rights; loves earmarks and federal pork; is opposed to free trade agreements on the grounds that they are a tool of the NWO to enforce a North American Union; is opposed to the UN because it's a tool of the NWO to enforce a North American Union; is in favor of letting companies use soft money in political campaigns; is opposed to forcing lobbyists to disclose who they give money to; is opposed to medicaid; supports in homeopathy; wants to abolish social security; wants to abolish capital tax, inheritance tax, and estate tax; is opposed to net neutrality; is opposed to music royalties (wtf?).

(source: http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm)

And that's without going in to his retarded bills. The We The People bill is probably the dumbest bill I've ever seen.

He's got decent views on war, in so far that he's absolutely opposed, for any reason, ever. And that's about it.

5
hblask•

wants to abolish the fed & return to the gold standard;

A bit flaky, but better than the current fiscal crisis. He admits he can never get rid of the Fed.

opposed to equal pay for equal work for men and women

Nonsense. He just doesn't think that every private issue is a federal issue.

wants to close the department of education

The existence of the Dept of Ed makes no theoretical or practical sense. Parents want to educate kids. So then send their money to Washington, where 1/2 to 2/3rd is wasted on bureaucracy, and the remaining amount is shipped back to parents with strings attached that makes local solutions impossible. WTF?

And if that doesn't convince you, then just compare test scores the year before the DOE was created to now. Either way, it's indefensible to keep flushing money down that hole.

etc....

You may want to understand his actual positions instead of your cartoon version of it.

0
Facehammer•

and the remaining amount is shipped back to parents with strings attached that makes local solutions impossible.

Local solutions like "teaching creationism as genuine science."

Keeping bullshit like creationism and climate change denial out of science classes is difficult enough as it is. Turning education over to the free market and homeschooling parents will make it just about impossible. If you thought schoolkids were ignorant now, you've seen nothing yet.

-1
hblask•

The courts have consistently said that creationism cannot be taught as science in public schools, so this is just a red herring.

It is the horrid public schools that are driving people to homeschool their kids, at growth rate of 15 to 20% per year. Local solutions are what brings kids back to schools. Horrible unresponsive bureaucracies are what drives them away.

Any parent who wants to can already homeschool their kid. Wasteful federal bureaucracy does nothing to prevent that, and much to encourage it. Federal "solutions" are the problem, not the solution.

But if you have a theory of how unresponsive schools that don't teach over 1/3rd of the kids can encourage parents to put their kids into that school, I'd love to hear it.

5
cheney_healthcare•

Paul isn't 100% ideal, but he is one of the best we have.

As you said, he has balls of steel, and stands up and is vocal about issues.

There are more than 400 congressmen, how many others, including democrats, actually strongly stand for things, whether popular or not, and work as hard as Paul does to get his message out?

I've asked this before on reddit.... can anyone name more than 10 current democrats who are more anti-war, pro individual rights, anti-torture, pro-drug legalization, anti-TSA than Paul?

Can anyone even name 4?

4
voice_of_unreason•

Dennis Kucinich is the only one I can think of that compares.

4
cheney_healthcare•

<3 Kucinich!

0
Facehammer•

He's pretty shite as well.

0
[deleted]•

Thanks for pointing this out. I tend to favor Ron Paul's financial message, but he's also a person who disagrees with the theory of evolution so i struggle to really support him.

The flip-side to his thoughts on "creationism" is that he doesn't feel it's the governments place to intervene nor regulate personal choice...so maybe, even if he disagrees with evolution, he won't impose this agenda.

-1
cheney_healthcare•

but he's also a person who disagrees with the theory of evolution

Wrong.

his thoughts on "creationism"

... are non-existent.

Please see this comment for more info:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/efnii/ron_paul_wikileaks_in_a_free_society_we_are/c17s9cv

1
Facehammer•

his thoughts on "creationism"

... are non-existent.

Well, that's one way to put it.

-1
thestreaker•

I'm a big supporter of Dr. Paul, and he would be a greater leader of this nation, but its not like any one person is going to be able to make a difference. The government is too overpowered by political lobby ism for any one person to make a difference. the only way to fix things is to ban lobbyists and get a completely fresh round of people into government. preferably no one with any religious affiliations or globalist agendas...that would be a start but completely impossible...

2
AtomicDog1471•

Dr. Paul

Get your nose out of his ass and call him "Ron Paul" like everyone else.

1
Facehammer•

I want everyone to call him Pron Haul, personally

-1
[deleted]•

I like the guy for the most part, but I don't care for the whole creationism thing.

2
cheney_healthcare•

Then you will be delightered to hear that he isn't a creationist, and that he DOES BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

What you have seen is a confusion between abiogenesis and biological evolution.

Check this comment for more info:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/efnii/ron_paul_wikileaks_in_a_free_society_we_are/c17s9cv

5
[deleted]•

That's still a lie. It was a lie when Bestc0ast invented it by mindreading what Ron Paul really meant as opposed to what he actually clearly states, it was a lie when bestc0ast kept repeating it over and over, and it's a lie now.

In the video Ron Paul states that he rejects the theory of evolution, and although he can not prove it he knows that the Creator who created the universe created all of us. That's it. He's not making any points about what constitutes a scientific theory, and he's not answering a different question about what abiogenesis is.

5
Facehammer•

What you see here is a Ron Paul supporter lying about his idol's idiot anti-scientific beliefs.

Ask yourself why they feel this is necessary.

2
Wraith12•

I also think Ron Paul is awesome, and given a choice between Obama and Ron Paul in an election right now, I would probably choose Ron Paul. The problem is that the Republican party is taken over by neo-conservatives that brought us 8 years of Bush/Cheney and will likely continue the same disastrous policies when they come back in power. Ron Paul will never win the Republican nomination to be in the general election because of the neo-cons and I'm pretty sure whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012 is going to be worse than Obama.

2
jscoppe•

They're losing power. The economy couldn't handle their excessive wars + tax cuts + new spending. The Tea Parties have even helped shift away from neoconservative ideology toward more traditional conservatism.

If anti-war, pro-civil liberties liberals and progressives would bite the bullet and vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the Republican primaries, it is possible we can avoid the Romneys, Huckabees, and god forbid Palins.

-1
Facehammer•

I would take the latter over the former. Any day.

2
jscoppe•

Why?

2
Facehammer•

Because awesome stupidity is better than unabashed evil.

-1
jscoppe•

Liberals should vote Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in the Republican Primaries. You can vote in them without registering Republican if your state has open primaries. And hell, you can even register Republican to vote in the primary, vote for Paul or Johnson, and then feel free to vote for Obama in the general election (and you don't have to tell anyone ;) ).

The reason you would do this, even if you are an Obama supporter, is to effect change in the Republican Party. If one of them takes the nomination, or even gets close, the platform of the party will shift, as we've seen with the Tea Party. It would be the best for everyone if our choice in this crappy 2-party system was between two anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidates.

2
[deleted]•

HAHAHAHAHA!

Ron Paul - pro civil liberties? He voted in favor of DODT; opposed to all forms of affirmative action; opposed to gay marriage; opposed to equal pay for equal work; opposed to gay couple's adopting kids. However, he did vote against national ID card (because it leads to an evil North American Union), and in favor of keeping flag burning legal.

Oh yeah, and every year he submits a bill, the We The People bill, to let states institute laws which violate the Bill of Rights (because he thinks the Bill of Rights should only apply to federal laws).

Also a reminder to everyone: Ron Paul is a republican. A vote for him is a vote for GOP.

3
Facehammer•

[He did vote] in favor of keeping flag burning legal.

Nope. Proposed to make flag-burning illegal.

Twice.

My, what a principled and honest and consistent man.

1
jscoppe•

He voted in favor of DODT

Did you mean DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) or something else? Because he voted to repeal that. He changed his mind based on new information.

opposed to all forms of affirmative action

Affirmative action is a racist policy.

opposed to gay marriage

Nope, he wants the government to not be involved with marriage at all, so that he can recognize his version of marriage, and you can recognize yours.

opposed to gay couple's adopting kids

No, he voted against federal funding of gay adoptions in Washington DC.

opposed to equal pay for equal work

I don't even understand what you mean, here. Some people are better at some jobs than other people. No two programmers have the same exact productivity, for instance.

Also a reminder to everyone: Ron Paul is a republican. A vote for him is a vote for GOP.

You are a partisan hack.

But even so, wouldn't you rather see Obama v Paul instead of Obama v Romney? At least Paul is for ending wars of aggression.

1
Facehammer•

I think you need to read some more about Ron Paul. You need to see how he wants to repeal occupational safety laws. How he wants to remove restrictions on guns in schools and national parks. How he thinks there should be no separation between church and state. How he plans to build a fence across the entire Mexican border. How he wants to abolish all state-funded education. How he thinks there should be no such thing as a minimum wage. How he would entirely get rid of social security. Check his voting record - see how he believes that those who oppose authoritarianism are undeserving of remembrance by the state, that he should play no part in preventing or intervening in foreign genocides, and how he proposes bills full of earmarks that he knows will pass, then votes against his own bill to preserve his record of voting against earmarks.

And that's before we get onto his positions regarding abortion, evolution, climate change and stem cell medicine.

Then there are the rest of his followers. Truthers. Stormfront. Survivalists. Assorted extreme-right militias and gun nuts. Conspiracy theorists of just about every stripe. White supremacists. Extremist christian groups. Support from one or two could plausibly be dismissed as chance. The sheer number that idolise him cannot be ignored, however. You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.

Like peanut_sniper said, this apparent shift from a centrist to a far right lunatic smells extremely fucking fishy to me. It's exactly the sort of crap that gullible Paultards would absolutely love to circlejerk all over. Time and time again, I've seen Ron Paul supporters use the most revoltingly dishonest tactics to advance their cause. This reeks of just another example. Ron Paul represents just about everything that is wrong with American politics today.

2
CraptchaOP•

While I value both yours and peanut_sniper's feedback, it's difficult to ignore your extreme bias against Paul. What I said in my post is that I was wrong to dismiss Ron Paul and it's supporters so easily. I'm not saying the guy should be president. I'm not saying he shouldn't, either.

I really think that the existing president rode on an extremely powerful campaign and came into office with the world at it's feet. Instead of using this momentum to carry out revolutionary reforms, he might have been too careful or too 'correct' to exploit this popularity to it's advantage. The result, two years later, is that Obama has less support from its constituents and less traction in Washington. That's disappointing to say the least.

2
Facehammer•

it's difficult to ignore your extreme bias against Paul.

Yeah, I'm biased. But that comes from actually knowing things about Ron Paul. If I didn't know anything about him, I plain wouldn't give a shit.

I really think that the existing president rode on an extremely powerful campaign and came into office with the world at it's feet. Instead of using this momentum to carry out revolutionary reforms, he might have been too careful or too 'correct' to exploit this popularity to it's advantage. The result, two years later, is that Obama has less support from its constituents and less traction in Washington. That's disappointing to say the least.

Indeed it is, though I believe the magnitude of his failures is often vastly overstated. The solution, though, however you see America's current state, is absolutely not to hand over control or give credence to the figurehead of America's most unashamedly regressive political groups.

1
CraptchaOP•

I'm in agreement with you on the voting record. I still think we need more outspoken public figures in high places.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a LarouchePAC meeting to attend. These gentlemen seem to know quite a lot about what's going on.

=P

2
AtomicDog1471•

Ron Paul is a creationist. He's against abortion, homosexuality, net-neutrality and socialised healthcare. He is credited with creating the Tea Party and he gave the world Rand Paul.

Just because he's recently spoken out in favour of Wikileaks doesn't change this. Also, the fact that he "speaks his mind" doesn't excuse him of being batshit insane any more than it excuses Sarah Palin.

2
james_3000•

Do you guys think Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich could get anything done if they were in the white house? I certainly don't. They still have to work within in the system and with congress. Honesly if either of these guys would become president they wouldn't be able to find a single congressman who would sponsor their bills let alone get a bill out of committee and then passed on the floor.

It's easy to take a principled stand in the US house of representatives, and vote "NO" on everything when your not likely to be the deciding vote. Especially when you are in a safe seat. Don't even have to campaign.

2
political•

If Obama had some Dr. Ron Paul in him....he probably would have been shot down by the media.

Like they did to Dr. Howard Dean.

1
Blunt___Smokings•

Told you so?

0
thestreaker•

upvote for name

-1
Blunt___Smokings•

upvote for KFC still being open

1
Dhghomon•

Since there are two major parties in the US you don't really have to place all your loyalty with one. During the 2008 election I was first a strong supporter of Ron Paul whereas I thought Obama on the other side was...pretty good. In any case it looked like he was on his way to winning the nomination (or Clinton, but she's also in the 'pretty good' camp) whereas on the GOP side it was either Ron Paul or some neoconservative blowhard, so I did what I could to help out Ron Paul online (since I don't live in the US) during the primaries. After McCain won the primaries it was time to help out the Democrats, though for a while I found Obama's speeches pretty dry in comparison with Ron Paul who was always unscripted and loved to go off topic.

The good thing about Ron Paul is that he's 100% uninterested in personal attacks, and Obama is pretty much the same way in his lack of interest in drama. I would love to see Ron Paul on the GOP side and Obama on the other. I don't agree that one should support any politician 100%, and actually neither does Ron Paul. When he agrees with his party he agrees with them, when he doesn't he doesn't, and the same for anything proposed on the other side as well. So I wouldn't recommend an overly melodramatic "Ron Paul is always right and Obama is always wrong" approach. If the choice in the upcoming election ends up being Obama vs. Palin/Gingrich I hope you also put Ron Paul aside for a few months in order to prevent the latter ticket from winning.

0
61-50-7•

If we could elect more politicians with Paul's integrity the world would be a better place. It wouldn't really matter what they believed politically either. If they followed the constitution and refused to compromise i.e. never voted for anything they found unconstitutional even the worse neo-cons and far left liberals could do a lot of good.

We shoot ourselves in the foot by electing spineless politicians who bend to every corporate whim and exist by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Edit: The hive mind doesn't like people who stand by their beliefs and vote how they say they will? Without a doubt Ron Paul is one of very few who actually vote exactly how they feel they should and exactly how they say they will. Like a said, if every politician behaved this way we would be better off. All those political compromises done to "get things done" only serve to deliver awful policy. Dangling the money in front of both sides causes most politicians to vote for bills containing policy going directly against the platforms they ran one just so their state doesn't miss out on federal money.

Ron Paul is seemingly immune to this influence and love him or hate him Texan's get exactly what they voted for.

Edit2: I'm new to this reddit thing, why won't anyone argue with my point if they disagree? I don't care about the karma I just feel like I'm being cheated an opportunity to prove someone wrong or maybe learn something;)

-1
mbland07•

How about a Unity Ticket '12 with Ron Paul on the top and Kucinich as VP. United we stand, divided we fall. right?

-1
[deleted]•

A religious rightwinger and a communist? That'd be an interesting presidency.

3
mbland07•

i don't think ron paul would allow his religion to interfere with his style of governance. he understands the importance of secularism and relgious freedom.

1
[deleted]•

I don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes in, there are actually some pretty serious "deal breakers" between my beliefs and his with regards to economic stuff and going too far with the anti-regulation stuff.

With that said, I'm still tempted to vote for him if he comes up, because he's an awesome guy. He says what he believes in and unlike literally everyone else, he actually freaking sticks to it. I respect that and hold him in a lot of esteem.

-1
thebrightsideoflife•

Congrats. We can only hope he or Gary Johnson (who is close to Paul) will be on the ballot for the Republicans in '12 rather than Palin, Gingrich, Romney, or Huckabee.

-2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
flyingtyrannosaurus•

The one thing I have learned recently about Ron Paul is that he has moral convictions and isn't afraid to speak his mind. It's amazing that he's a congressman. It seems most of our elected officials (including the President) are too "politically correct" to point out problems. And address the real issues.

I thought Paul was independent this whole time for some reason... He's a fighter for civil liberties and privacy and peace.

I can't imagine what the citizens of the U.S. Need more than those things.

-2
[deleted]•

You jump from a centrist democrat like Obama to a religious rightwing populist like Paul? That's quite a move. You bought in to the Paul propaganda campaign hitching himself to the Wikileaks bandwagon? He does that with every popular subject you know.

Well, before you decide you should read this. If you still want to support him after that.... well then Obama was probably never really right for you.

-3
cheney_healthcare•

You are a propagandist.

  • If you had been paying attention, you would know that Obama talks about God/etc more than Paul

  • If you had ever read any of Paul's material, you would know that he has always been a supporter of causes like Wikileaks, and also against things like the TSA's gate-rape.

  • If you weren't so ignorant, you would understand that Paul isn't a populist, but he has a well grounded ideology which hasn't changed for decades.

8
[deleted]•

Hello Pot, you've apparently mistaken me for Kettle.

  • If you actually knew anything about Paul you'd know he's a deeply religious rightwinger who, just as an example, is opposed to the separation of state and church, and has sponsored bills to amend the constitution to allow school prayer.

  • Haha, yeah, like I said, Paul always does this. Pick an issue, determine the most populist view: that's where you'll find Paul.

  • Yeah, like his stance on death sentences, amirite?

Come on Cheney, that's weaksauce for a pro like you.

2
cheney_healthcare•

and has sponsored bills to amend the constitution to allow school prayer.

LOL... you aren't very good.

Welcome to my troll list.

1
Facehammer•

LOL... you aren't very good.

How can it be that a thinking, conscious human being can be so bad at this? I'm pretty sure a pile of mud fashioned into a roughly humanoid form could produce a better post. I'm actually kind of lost for words to describe precisely why this post is as bad as it is.

Hey Peanut_Sniper, have I invited you to join us in our troll cave yet?

1