Ron Paul Supporters

Let me preface this whole post by saying that I like Ron Paul more than any other candidate currently running for president. While I think many of his ideas are terrible, I think others are very good. That is a change from the other candidates who almost all support policies on key issues I strongly disagree with. The only thing Obama has over the Republican candidates is a slightly better stance on social issues, but I don't care about social issues that much, and Paul's stance on most of those issues is significantly more appealing to me. However, on the issues I care about namely the economic and foreign policy problems we face, none of the candidates represent me, except for Paul on many foreign policy issues(though not all). So if I had to vote for a candidate currently running for president, it would unquestionably be Ron Paul.


Having said all that, I find his supporters to be well meaning and not stupid, but entirely delusional about Ron Paul. It is not that they like him or think he is the best candidate period, not just currently running as I think. They think he has a legitimate chance of winning the primary and then the general election. They think the only reason this may not happen is because people invent issues to attack him on, like civil rights, racism, etc. On top of all that, Ron Paul is generally either not covered by the mainstream media or covered negatively. Paul supporters realize, but don't seem to understand how incredibly important that is. That fact alone makes his candidacy not viable.

However, besides for ignoring those obvious facts. There is something else that makes his candidacy not viable. His position on issues. Despite what many Ron Paul supporters think, Ron Paul's positions are not generally popular among the American people, and they would not become so just by explaining, educating, etc people about Ron Paul. People like Social Security.

79% of people say SS has been good for the country. Ron Paul and his fringe supporters don't agree.

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

medicare is similarly popular. So is a foreign policy where the US projects it's force across the globe. The American people are also generally busy bodies, who like telling others how to live their lives, so Ron Paul's social libertarian stance is going to get him in a lot of trouble as well. Not nationally as much, but in individual primaries, his social libertarianism is going to be used to attack him. In South Carolina, he will be attacked on those issues, and he will be called soft on the war on terror because of his stance on foreign policy issues. However, in a place like New Hampshire they will instead go after his stances on SS, civil rights, etc. His record of policy stances is simply too controversial to hold up to major media scrutiny. Something he has not had to deal with yet. However, if he wins Iowa, and starts to get some momentum, the attacks will come flying hard and fast. And Paul's record simply gives the opposition far too much to work with. Now his record may be something his supporters like, but they should wake up to the reality, that most Americans wouldn't if they knew about it. So those people need to make alternative plans for how to fix this country. Ron Paul is not the solution. I wish Ron Paul supporters would open their eyes to this reality, and use all the positive energy they have to work towards a cause which will actually solve some of the problems this country has, like a grass roots movement to pass a constitutional amendment to make elections publicly financed. Or something else along those lines.

In the end support for Paul makes sense to me as a principled stance against a broken system, as long as those supporters realize they are supporting a losing cause, and look for alternative outlets to vent their frustration through.

 

I don't disagree with any of this. I'd be shocked to death if Ron Paul won the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency.

I've always known that his "fringe" followers would be a political liability, and that his philosophical way of addressing politics could be easily twisted and distorted by his opponents, so I've always tried to find a pragmatic starting point for discussing his political platform, but it's almost impossible sometimes!

For instance, you mentioned SS and Medicare. Ron Paul actually has a pragmatic approach to these entitlement programs. Philosophically, he sees them as unnecessary and unlawful, BUT he understands how ingrained they are in our society. Paul has specifically said that he would continue financing those programs, but that his long term goal would be to devolve them to the states in a practical manner. Most people conflate his desire for incremental reform with immediate dissolution.

3:21 for his explanation, though I would suggest listening to the entire interview.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLwJyc0ZqI"]Interview with Ron Paul 7/19/2007 health care part1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Those who support Paul are the same as those who support Obama or (generic republican).

 

Feel free to explain.

 

I have supported Ron Paul for a while , sometimes his policies are not what I want but close enough. I don't think we are anymore delusional than an Obama supporter believing he would change a thing , we Americans will continue to be lied to and cheated out of our freedoms if we continue to go down the same path .

 

Don't hold your breath on that one.

 

LOL!! What an excellent jest! After all your other talk about what tyrannical monsters Americans are I'd rather pass a constitutional amendment to have the American voting public hanged for crimes against humanity.

 

You seem to be under the impression that libertarians are unwilling or unable to hold pragmatic views, and everything is seen in absolutes.

 

They think that because they are uneducated, I used to support government healthcare like 6-7 years ago, in the mean time I received a proper education in economics and this has allowed me to understand why state run healthcare is a very bad idea, if I can be turned from a statist to a free marketeer then so can alot of other westerners, obviously some westerners are just so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb that no matter how much you explain something to them they will never understand it but I still think that a majority of westerners have the capacity to understand free market economic theory pretty well and that is all that is needed to get someone like Ron Paul elected.

The only reason why Ron Paul is not crushing in the polls is because of the lack education in America (the theories taught in public schools are not educational), that can be fixed however.

 

So basically you are saying that you like Ron Paul for the most part, but he is unelectable because most of America doesn't support his policies? Well welcome to the club. You have just described every American Communist/Socialist canaditate in the last 100 years. That's the problem with democracy, you have to have a majority of the population on your side. ( or at the very least, a multimillion dollar campaign that convinces the majority of the population that the needs of the rich and corporations are the same needs of the average American)

 

So tell us enlighten educated one, why is universal healthcare a bad idea?

 

And you need a lot of special interest groups that think the canidate can be bought.

 

And Ron Paul is much diffrent? Who does free market economics help expect for the rich and the corporations?

 

The rich and corporations are not supporting Ron Paul with words or funding. Look how the corporatist media are going all out on Paul. That's because we don't have a free market and they don't want one. They want us to continue on with monopoly corporatism, socialism for the rich...bailouts, subsidies, special tax breaks and selective regulation.

The recent establishment leaders are used as nothing more than a tool to shutdown the competition, while piling their failures on the American people.

 

I feel just like you: I would be obligated to vote for Ron Paul, but I do not feel he is the solution, simply because the solution to the people would not be allowed on television, it interferres with special interest agenda. I believe I have a solution, and when I will put out the next speech on youtube, I think we all should listen. Ron Paul is more like our statue of liberty.

 

Because you TAKE from producers and give to the lazy.

 

I don't know if Paul is different or not. Anymore, nothing surprises me.

BTW - who does non-free market economies help? The people??? Yeah - sure. It looks like history paints a different picture. The only folks that benefited from the least free economies were the party bosses and bureaucrats that ran the nation (usually into the ground).

 

And some how you believe that corporations free do to whatever they want is something they don't desire. No chains of regulations. The corporate media has gone after all the candidates. They are just thinning the pack and they are happy as long as the winner has the same message " government (regulation)is bad and freedom is good"

Heck, the corporate media had no problem falling in love with Obama last election. He follows the same marching orders as the rest.

 

Define lazy. Are the lazy the guy that can't afford health insurance because he is trying to support a family with a minimum wage income or maybe the unemployed auto worker because his job got sent to Mexico thanks to free trade? How about the guy sitting by the poolside living off the stock dividends he inherited from his father and only has to pay 15% capital gains tax?

 

Or, how about...

 

It's funny that back in the old days that our grandparents lived in, when tariffs were high and manufacturing was stateside, the USA was the most powerful nation in the world, economically and military. You know those days when unions that impede growth were powerful and income tax on the rich was approaching 90%. You know those awful years when you could graduate right out of high school, get a job at the local union factory, make enough to support a family,wife didn't have to work, buy a house, a car, enough to retire and send your kids to college.

Your right, things are so much better now that we have freed our markets and accepted corporate greed

 

I remember those days......and the problem isn't how the US has changed...it's how the rest of the wrold has changed.

 

Oh, you mean the woman that believes a government by the people, for the people, can give out handouts to corporations and not individuals is lazy. Oh I get it now. And what makes the corporations not lazy?

 

And what choices did he make to only be in a min wage job with a family to support? There is typically more to that story than, "I have been stuck flipping burgers for 10 years making min wage".

Sucks whe your union screws the company out of making a profit in the states because they get the rates for workers jacked to $45/hr +. Guess that is why Japan moved their production TO the states when they didn't have to have union workers and could pay the unskilled worker and the proper rates of $25/hr and make a better car.

Jealous much? There was still work involved there. He is lazy because his parents were harder workers that provided for their families long after they were gone.

 

No, the only thing that has changed is that we allowed the rich and corporations to get greedier. You take away the rules and someone is gonna cheat.