For Ron Paul Voters: Have You Ever Analyzed Paul's Policies with a Magnifying Glass?

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by thediplomat2.0, Jan 12, 2012.

  1. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Essentially, I am asking if you have examined Paul's ideas with an equitable mind. Many Ron Paul supporters on this forum seem to have an undying confidence in him, believing that he can do no wrong.
     
  2. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I basically know all of his positions.
     
  3. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would you say you understand not just his positions, but his policies? For example, the Free Competition in Currencies Act, or the "Sanctity of Life Act." It seems that Ron Paul supporters understand his positions, but not as much about his actual policies.
     
  4. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I don't know all of his policies. He advocated for a lot of them. It sounds like the former your mentioned allows for currencies to compete, and the latter tries to offset Roe v Wade? Those are his positions on what should happen, so I can take an educated guess that that's what those policies were, but I certainly have not read all of his policies that he has voted for or advocated for.
     
  5. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Free Competition in Currency Act would not just allow for currencies to compete. It would privatize the Federal Reserve by removing government insulation. That is how he would end the Federal Reserve. It would not be through conducting an audit and say arresting members of the Board. Essentially, the goal is to have the Federal Reserve to self-destruct.

    The Sanctity of Life Act doesn't just offset Roe v. Wade. In all future cases, the Federal Court system would not be able to rule in favor of abortion, yet it would still be able to rule in favor of life. This is not just inequitable, but unconstitutional. States, and only the states have the right to deal with matters of legislating, or ruling on life, or abortion. For the law to be truly Constitutional, Paul would have to designate that the Federal Court system no longer has jurisdiction to rule on matters of life and abortion.

    The reason why I asked such a question was to see if Ron Paul supporters understand such nuances in his policies that may seem irrelevant, but are actually quite important.
     
  6. Dan40

    Dan40 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,560
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no problem with Paul doing no wrong. My problem with Paul is that he has never done any right. He just talks. It is of NO importance what Paul's policies actually are. He has never implemented or even come remotely close to implemting any policy in all his decades in Congress.
     
  7. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just find that his supporters have unquestionable confidence in him. It seems odd for Libertarians to put faith in any public leader. Furthermore, I am interested as to how many of his supporters really understand the policy behind his positions.
     
  8. Dan40

    Dan40 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,560
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How does one who never has gone anywhere,,,,,,,,,,lead?

    He is a failed Congressman that always runs for president. This year will end up like his previous ego trips.
     
  9. marbro

    marbro New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that is the same reason a lot of us like him. If he just did what everyone else did, raise taxes, expand government, increase spending, reduce liberty...I wouldnt be voting for him.
     
  10. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So it's better than I thought. Cool.

    That's what he said his abortion position was in his book. I looked this bill up on Wiki, and it said:
    Paul's reintroduction of the bill was introduced the same year as the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction” from federal court jurisdiction.
    Doesn't say anything about the court's ability to rule in favor of life. I don't know -- I haven't read the reintroduction or the initial bill itself.
     
  11. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But why have unquestionable confidence in him? From a Libertarian perspective, trust in any public official usually is paired with skepticism, but no for Ron Paul.
     
  12. marbro

    marbro New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do not have unquestionable confidence in him what so ever. I look at his voting record and how it stands up to his rhetoric. Then I look at his competitors. It’s an easy decision.

    I do have unquestionable confidence in ALL the other candidates to be corrupt after looking at their past.

    I hope that helps.

    Edit* I do not find much wrong with huntsman but he is also the candidate I have least researched. I did find that huntsman promised to reduce spending if elected and he increased it massively. But I never found much on corruption. Not saying that its not out there its just i have not found it.
     
  13. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The excerpt you quote is in reference to his We the People Act, a completely different bill. Yet he has been forwarding the "Sanctity of Life Act" while campaigning. Look up the bill on the Library of Congress website. It is from 2009. The language of the bill is very different from the We the People Act.
     
  14. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Woops -- my mistake. I'll look up the Sanctity of Life Act.
     
  15. LibertarianFTW

    LibertarianFTW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,385
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds like it leaves it to the states.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2533:
     
  16. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the most part it does, but look at the criterion that the Federal Court System may not rule on. The concept of life is not mentioned, only abortion.
    I see federal government legislated morality by allowing Congress to define life as beginning from conception. That is an infringement upon the reserved power of defining life. Granted, the law states that state governments have authority, but it specifically states that they have the authority "to protect unborn children", but not to protect the right of a mother to choose.

    I also see inequitable and unconstitutional changes in the jurisdiction of the courts. Sections 1268 and 1370 prevent the Federal court system from ruling in favor of matters that will allow the performance of abortions, or the utilization of public funds for abortion, which could also include state governments if a state defies this Federal Statute by not "protecting unborn children."

    The one provision that you could point out a remnant of equity is Section 1268, sub-section 1. However, that part of the law is rather worthless when you consider that life is defined beforehand.

    Like I said, there are nuances in his policies that make his stances highly questionable.
     
  17. Dan40

    Dan40 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,560
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How completely foolish can people be? Paul sat in a House with 435 members for 35 years. Shouldn't he have learned at some point that it takes 218 votes to get anything passed? NEVER did he pull together 218 people to vote his way on any one of his sacred cows. THAT IS FAILURE in congress. Voting the way you talk, WHAT does it accomplish? NOTHING. Nothing at all except a platform to run for president over and over to assuage your runaway ego.. As President he would need 218 votes in the house. One more than he ever needed and never got while there. Plus 51 votes in the Senate to pass anything. That's 269 votes when he NEVER could get 217 together before. Our Congress is a law making body. Paul couldn't put together the votes when he was PART of the law making body. That precludes any possibility that he could bring together the required votes as a former member of the law making body. and making laws is not a matter of principles, it is more like making sausages. A messy business. That is how it is supposed to be. 535 free thinking, free talking INDIVIDUALS. The ones that really have something to say, get it done. Paul is not, was not, and will not ever be one to get it done. He just likes running for president. He is a massive overwhelming waste of time.
     
  18. Dan40

    Dan40 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,560
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    0

    And this bill, like all other Ron Paul sponsored bills has not become law and will not become law so what it says is meaningless.
     
  19. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You confound faith for hope. We know Ron Paul isn't perfect, but it's like having a 90% libertarian versus all of the other candidates being 90% statist. Obama promised hope, and we got Bush II. Yet, Obama never showed any consistency. We *know* what Ron Paul believes in. Not all of his objectives are supported by all those who promote him, but a good many are and the rest just has to be taken with it. Is it going to be another decade of war in which millions more people suffer and/or die, or perhaps a small pushback on abortion that may lead to a few unwanted pregnancies?

    That he wrote a book called "End The Fed" should be enough for anyone to know what his intent is regarding the monetary central planning of the Federal Reserve.
     
  20. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We live in trying times. The economy is fragile, high unemployment and declining wages. What was once viewed as extremist now sounds like a good idea. Guys, there was a reason we started the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights act, got off the gold standard and passed Glass Steagall. We are not in this situation because we did these things, we are in this situation because we ignored these things and allowed a bunch of bankers to defraud the entire world then buy their butts out of trouble by bribing Congress. Ron Paul would be the beginning of the end of capitalism not because he is evil or corrupt, but because he is naive and an ideologue, too rigid to understand that life is a compromise and both sides have merit. This is not the time to polarize the electorate, it is a time to come together and compromise and move forward.
     
  21. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, they "get it done" and destroy liberty and property rights every day and by increasing their power and the wealth that flows to themselves, their family, their friends and their contributors. Paul does not.

    If he's a waste of time, why are you wasting time on him?
     
  22. thatkimjongilisanucklehed

    thatkimjongilisanucklehed New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Actually, the Nelson Aldrich's bill for the National Reserve Association, which was turned down prior to the 1912 election, is essentially the same bill which eventually passed as the Federal Reserve Act. In fact, the only differences between the two bills:

    #1 Decentralization of the bank into 12 member banks

    #2 The Federal Reserve Board with a chairman- all of whom would be appointed by congress

    Aldrich's bill was authored by Aldrich himself, and planned by the Wall Sreet elite. Paul Warburg and Fredrick Vanderlip, two extremely wealthy Wall Street bankers with close connections to JP Morgan and the Rockefellers helped him write it. It says so in both of their autobiographies as well as Aldrich's. In addition, there was Benjamin Strong, who was also present. After the legislation was finally passed in 1913, he went on to become the Chairman of the New York bank. What an odd coincidence.

    That "bunch of bankers" has had its hold on everything and everyone since the Fed's creation.
     
  23. RP12

    RP12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    48,878
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why did you mention Glass Steagall as it is no longer law? We arent capitalist nation now! How did you explain "to big to fail"? How do you explain bailing out GM? How do you explain bailing out the euro?

    Compromise and both sides having merit got us wonderful things like Patriot Act, Obamacare and NDAA. If people stuck by their principles none of those would exist.
     
  24. NetworkCitizen

    NetworkCitizen New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    5,477
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What if some people do not believe in a woman's right to kill? Babies are not suddenly created at the moment of birth. Are you anti-science? What if some believe that a fetus has rights?

    I don't see how simply allowing gold and silver to be used as competing legal tender would destroy the earth. I don't see how trying to phase out of a system controlled by unaccountable international bankers who just destroyed the world economy would destroy the earth..
     
  25. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I just assumed everybody knew this?
     

Share This Page