I got a response letter from a netizen about Ron Paul. I thought it important to understand the ideas and thought process behind someone who does not support Ron Paul. This country and Ron Paul especially engage in the idea of free speech. Although a free platform is not required, I thought this post was especially thought through and requires a response. Please by all means respond to this post with your thoughts and counter-arguments. Please keep the thread without insults people.
This is posted on digg.com digg story
---
by Kursio
published 8/27/2007
I think that Ron Paul’s policy of non-intervention, withdrawal from Iraq and immigration stances are good ideas, not to mention that he brings a lot of hope and inspiration for many people and get usually politically inactive young people to take part in campaigning. However I don’t like his libertarian domestic policies (except promoting state’s right and standing up for constitution) that would effectively abolish most federal programs which help the poor and low-income people the most while Paul would want toreduce regulations on enterprises to a minimum: government power would change to corporation power at worst, in the long-shot. His voting record is clearly anti-environmentalist which I see highly irresponsible in the time of global warming, he opposed raise on the minimum wage that would raise the quality of life of the poorest workers and he opposes right for abortion (though he would let the states decide), not to mention that he could reduce foreign aid as he sees it more harmful than helpful. When looking his voting record he hasn’t fought against corruption that much but on the contrary wanted to maintain it by voting NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions, voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads, and promotes UNLIMITED campaign contributions; with full disclosure. This would lead to even more corrupted politics and money would get even bigger role, effectively maintaining and strengthening two-party system. Furthermore, Ron Paul opposes giving a representative who could vote in Congress & electoral vote for over 500 000 D.C. residents, appealing to the Constitution which clearly isn’t flawless when today’s world is concerned. Hisstance in this issue goes against the principles of democracy: every adult citizen counts in the decision-making process.
What comes to Paul’s isolationist foreign policy: withdrawal from international organizations such as WTO, NATO, World Bank and especially the UN (in addition to some free trade treaties) would be showing back to rest of the world while hurting US economic & political interests and strengthening the idea of strong nation states in other countries, and I don’t think that such countries are in anyone’s interests. Lack of cooperation and strong, selfish major powers eventually got the world into WW I and II.International cooperation at political, economic and military level is what brings stability and peace to the world: the EU was established for the very reason for European countries to cooperate with each other, increase commerce, promote common values and stop further wars. Moreover, withdrawal from the UN would mean that the USA wouldn’t take part in the peacekeeping operations anymore.
Ron Paul is seen as a candidate of true change but if that’s the case, why he doesn’t promote abolishment of ”first-past-the-post” election system which effectively created & maintains corrupted and undemocratic two-party dominance and replace it with a multi-party system, not to mention the Electoral College that isn’t needed anymore? Why he doesn’t actively campaign against the power of lobbyists in Washington? Why he doesn’t talk about electoral reform in general? I take my information about Paul mainly from http://www.ontheissues.org/ but have also read ”issues” section from his homepage.
I indeed support Barack Obama for president though I don’t 100% agrees with him in issues. He’s not just charismatic & able speaker, he’s also honest, humble and energetic “people’s man” who has good record in fighting against corruption & lobbyists while promoting voting rights & bi-partisan approach. He’s relatively young in the US politics and as black he would significantly increase racial equality & tolerance, if not by legislation at least by attitudes. His plan for withdrawal from Iraq is realistic like his new foreign policy proposals which mainly emphasize cooperation over using the force ofarms. His health care & energy plans are seemingly good & extensive, and he’s Washington outsider compared to other major candidates (except John Edwards). Obama brings hope & change while he has realistic chances to actually make it to the WhiteHouse unlike Ron Paul in current conditions. I actually think that most Paul-supporters will vote for Obama if he’s nominated in the Democratic Convention.
It’s true that Ron Paul’s presence in the internet is extensively strong and young people show him strong support but this isn’t enough. Ron Paul lacks a lot of campaign money compared to front-runners to get face & policy recognition, the mass media largely ignores him and polls don’t look that good. Some people point out that Ron Paul has almost as much campaign money as Mitt Romney after expenses but this is a false comparison: Romney has got a lot of media visibility with his money unlike Paul who has used it pretty carefully. Though Paul won New Hampshire straw-poll it must be noted that the poll didn’t hold much significance compared to Iowa straw-poll, and internetpolls give very biased & even false picture as people can vote more than once in most of them. Not to mention that strong hype & campaign activity in the streets and in the internet may not mean a lot of actual support: Governor Howard Dean had stronggrassroots support and internet presence in 2004 but he came down like a janitor from the roof in the Primaries. I think Ron Paul will make it to 4th or 5th place but he won’t win the primaries: people aren’t completely fed up with the Democrats & Republicans whohave many different candidates, the mass media calls the shots and money talks, not to mention that there’s no visible crisis in the USA in the eyes of most people that would require totally new candidate for president. It can also be questioned if there are thatmany voters in the USA who actually agree with Paul’s libertarian policies.
What comes to the Council of Foreign Relations: it’s a political think-tank, a policy discussion club with a lot of influence & also secrecy surrounding it, agreeto that, but as far as I’m concerned it’s still not some secret conspiracy society that promotes North American Union under one government: increasing economic and security policy cooperation isn’t the same thing, and pointing out that X actually means Zdoesn’t make it true. There’s not even a mention about the one world government like many want to argue, and there’s no actual proof that Barack Obama or evenother presidential candidates would be actual members as the CFR doesn’t publish its membership records anywhere and speaking in CFR event doesn’t make aperson a member, even active one: Youtube videos and conspiracy sites are hardly credible sources. For example many Germans were members of the NSDAP during1930’s & WW II just to help their careers or not stand out from the pack. Furthermore, the policy statements & programs are written by a small group of CFR insider members and those statements & programs aren’t voted on in some national CFR convention to get approval from CFR members. Whole hype around the CFR makes me wonder: is this really the only major argument that many Paul-supporters make against frontrunners andother candidates? I hope not.
Furthermore I would like to add that even if, by some miracle, Ron Paul would be elected to become the president of the United States; he would hardly get much done if he would stand as firmly behind his principles as he has to this point. Legislation initiatives would get grid-locked, Paul’s vetoes repealed by Congressional majority, and Paul’s legislationinitiatives would hardly pass in addition to fact that mass media would bombard maverick president Paul. What this would cause would be a better cooperation andunderstanding between the Democrats & Republicans while strengthening support for third party and independent candidates which is a good thing.
Nevertheless, my main concern in this whole Ron Paul-issue was that no matter who supports what candidate, is that some people spread negative, hateful and even false information around from other candidates and paint devils into walls while taking noopposing, not even tiny critical stance towards their own candidate: in this aspect I just happened to read comments of Ron Paul’s videos and decided to comment a little bit in trying to break this image of Ron Paul as some Vice Jesus for many of his supporters. Isnegative campaigning really bringing about hope & change? The Paul supporters should make positive campaign emphasizing Paul’s values instead of furiously attacking against other candidates: criticizing others and attacking others are two different things.
P.S. I remembered that Iraq was going to switch to euros but wasn’t able to fully carry it out until the Coalition invaded at 2003.
read more digg story
11 comments:
The electoral college is needed now more than ever. It was not set up as a convenience - it was set up because we are not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic. Majority rule is Mob rule, and that is what a direct vote would be.
New York, Califirnia, Texas and FLorida could vote to turn Wyoming into a nuclear dump, and there wouldn't be a darned thing Wyomiong could do about it.
The 3 most populous states shouldn't get exclusive rights to elect the Prewsident.
I saw that you mentioned isolationist and stopped reading there. You are ill-informed and I hope people that read this also call you out on it.
Well expressed points of view and not just an attack? Very well spoken. At least you've put some thought into the comments. I disagree with your assesment on several things which I'm sure others will refute but I will suggest you continue to research and study points like the non-interventionist policy and the economic reform. I think in the long run, with more study, you might just change your viewpoint again. Even if not, at least you can back up what you believe and that is all that's asked of each voter is to vote their conscience.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
This is actually a well-thought out article. Though I'll have to say, he mentions Obama and charisma. Frankly, after Bush, I've had more than *enough* charisma/electability/whatever.
More garbage. When will you people learn, that the very people who claim to want to help the poor through various programs and public funding are the very same bankers and "corporatists" (please investigate Paul's use of this word, versus capitalist, to understand the crucial difference) who act continually to keep this country in a perpetual state of slavery? When? Wake up. Wake up. Wake up. When someone promises you they will ease your pain with free money, know them for the thief and liar they are.
Watch Zeitgeist part 3 on googlevideo. The Federal Reserve is the mechanism that enslaves this country. Ron Paul is the only one who stands against it. You must wake up.
You mentioned about social programs as a strong point to oppose Ron Paul. I think you're mistaken. Social obligation should be voluntary and never be enforced. The thought of getting money from someone and give to other is immoral and corrupted.
Ugg! I'm so tired of reading the ignorant, and perhaps sometimes, outright idiotic, rants of potential voters.
It puts into focus the necessary deficiency in our schools. They don't teach important points in history, nor their logical extrapolations.
Instead of going over in length points which I'll just need to re-iterate on the next blog, I'll post a link to a very eloquent speaker instead:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6813529239937418232&q=milton+friedman&total=161&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Some points he doesn't make in this video. Big government is the TOOL of the super-elite. Big corporations are the biggest PROPONENTS of big government. Wal-Mart for instance is a big supporter of universal medicare. Why? Ask yourselves why our government is bigger than ever, yet poverty is larger than ever while the middle-class is defaulting. At the same time the rich continue to grow richer. The reason is obvious: big government is MEANT to rape the middle and upper middle class, and redistribute this wealth AND power to the rich and ultra-elite. These ultra-elite, rich, corporations, etc, have all the lobbyists, all the lawyers and all the bribe money. They use regulation to eliminate upstart competitors --check out sarbanes-oxley which has made it impossible for small business to incorporate. Then they use big government spending for all the no-bid contracts it is worth.
You people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Have you ever wondered why the "poor" are much better off in free societies? Compare the "poor" in North Korea with the "poor" in South Korea --this is a country which used to be 1 less than 75 years ago. Now the "poor" in North Korea, which compromise 99% of the public are dying in the streets from starvation while the "poor" in North Korea can afford high speed Internet to the home.
That last sentence should be: "the poor in south korea can afford high speed internet to the home."
ONLY WHEN THE CONTROL OF THE CFR IS FULLY EXPOSED WILL THE VOTERS HAVE A AREAL DEMOCRATIC CHOICE. THE MASS DECEPTION BY THE MEDIA, CFR, AND GLOBALIST MUST BE EXPOSE TO THE PUBLIC. ALL THE TOP CANDIDATES FROM BOTH PARTY'S ARE BOUGH AND PAID FOR BY THE CFR AND THE GLOBALIST, RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE THATS NOT. RON PAUL WILL SECURE OUR BORDERS,AND PROTECT AMERICA'S SOVEREIGNTY, AND OUR CONSTITUTION THAT SERVED US WELL FOR 220 YEARS. THE CFR AND GLOBALIST ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WANT OPEN BORDERS, AND THE FORMATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION. SO AMERICA HAS TWO CHOICES VOTE FOR RON PAUL AND SAVE AMERICA, OR VOTE ONE OF THE TOP CANDIDATES AND LEARN TO SPEAK SPANISH.
Kursio if you care to learn how you are less informed.. I recommend you watch these movies..
America: from Freedom to Fascism
Zeitgeist(specifically part 3)
Ron Paul wanted to do similar things JFK wanted to do.. JFK wanted to get rid of the CIA, and they had a similar stance on the fed.. You have to understnad that these World Banks or the Federal Reserve are actually PRIVATELY OWNED.
the word "Federal" is completely misleading.. i know other responders have said this already, but please.. wake up.
yeah, other issues are important.. but how important will they be if you dont have the FREEDOM to do anything about them? RON PAUL WANTS TO RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC, our freedoms, our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness..
think about why he has the most military contributions(when he opposes the war)
think about how hes winning online polls by landslides..
think about how he is the most CENSORED and attacked on mainstream media..
think about why he attracts so many democrats AND republicans. we need to wake up people.. this left and right stuff is being used to control us
Post a Comment